| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EXHIBIT C4ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE VERSIONSThe 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
Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1,1990, between
MICROSOFT CORPORATION and
VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH EXHIBIT C8ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE VERSIONSThe 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.
Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1,1990. between
MICROSOFT CORPORATION and
VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 869 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 869 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] Depo. Ex. 97>From stevetho Fri Jul 26 13:48:24 1991 To: bradsi jancl janinah theresa Cc: dand danq davidcol karlst philba ralphl Subject: RE: FW: Re: Digital Research Date: Fri Jul 26 14:47:37 PDT 1991 To say that we don't support EMM for Win31 is one thing. To say that we don't support DR is quite another. They are OnLine customers. My job is to support our customers to the best of my ability. This is the same situation we were in when IBM sent in certain unfavorable questions. We better start drawing the line as to WHAT we support, not who. As long as these companies are our customer we owe them the best support possible. If we're not going to support them, somebody ought to tell them that. Telling DR that we won't support them because they're not an offical [sic] beta site buys us some time but when 3.1 is released we'll have to come up with another excuse. I'd like to be prepared when that time comes. Can we get a decision on this soon -- please! Steve >From janineh Fri Jul 26 13:53:34
1991
To: bradsi Cc: dand danq daavidcol karlst philba ralph1 stevetho Subject: FW: Re: Digital Research Date: Fri Jul 26 14:01:26 1991 I've talked w/ Steve Thompson. DRI was notified by a Win 3.1 Beta tester that it wasn't working w/ DR-DOS. Steve will tell them that he can't help them because they aren't in the beta program and because we don't answer beta questions via regular Online accts. This is a consistent message we have been telling anyone asking 3.1 questions via regular online. If they ask to be in the beta, we will just tell them the standard answer, write or fax Windows Beta. As a follow-up I'm going to work w/ both Dand and Danq about people on the black list. Janine >From bradsi Fri Jul 26 11:49:39 1991
To: davidcol karlst philba ralph1 Cc: Kalak [indistinct] Subject: Re: Digital Research Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 11:47:21 PDT How does DRI have Win 3.1 in the FIRST PLACE?????????????? They are on the beta blacklist!! Is the report from DR or a customer who is a beta tester of 3.1 who also uses dr dos? >From ralphl Fri Jul 26 10:26:22 1991
To: bradsi Subject: Digital Research Date: Fri Jul 26 10:25:45 1991 What is our position wrt helping DR with problems? >From danq Fri Jul 26 08:48:26 1991
To: greglo ralph1 Cc: marthawb [indistinct] neilsa stevetho Subject: Re: Loadhi.VxD - Digital Research Date: Fri Jul 26 08:46:47 PDT 1991 Greg or Ralph, [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1178475 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] X 584927 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] EXH 38 DATE 5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 401 C. A. No 2:96CV645E Plaintiff's Exhibit 869 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2 Didn't I hear a comment one day in
either of your offices re this. What should we tell DR
Thanks, Dan >From stevetho Thu Jul 25 11:20:41 1991 To: danq neilsa Cc: marthawb Subject: Re: Loadhi.VxD - Digital Research Date: Thu Jul 25 11:17:03 PDT 1991 These guys need to know what they need to do to get their memory manager to work in 3.1 Dan- Do you know where we can get this info? Thanks, Steve >From neilsa Mon Jul 22 12:56:59 1991 To: danq stevetho Cc: marthawb Subject: Re: Loadhi.VxD - Digital Research Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 12:55:56 SPD There is no loadhi VxD available for Win31 because that functionality has been built directly into VMM. The old VxD should detect this and not load on a 3.1 system, which is how it should be. So it's hard to say what problem they are having... I do know that there were problems with OEMM in this area, but I'm not privy to that information... >From stevetho Mon Jul 22 11:25:51
1991
To: danq Cc: marthawb neilsa Subject: Loadhi.VxD - Digital Research Date: Mon Jul 22 11:25:09 PDT 1991 Hey dude, A few months ago Neil helped DR with a Loadhi problem with Windows. Well, they got everything working for 3.0 but now they say they break in 3.1. Can you find out if there's a new Loadhi we can ship? Thanks, Steve [STAMPED] X 584928 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1178476 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 874 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 874 Page 1 of 1] ######################################################## 240 >From bradsi Mon Jul 29 07:29:48 1991 To: karlst philba ralphl steveb Subject: Re: Digital Research Date: Mon 29 Jul [19]91 07:29:40 PDT you bet. dri is in on the dos/win blacklist. nothing gets shipped from this BU without the blacklist being checked. i made it clear to the online guys that windows supports ms dos 3.1 and above. we are not to help dri. I will also talk to pattys about this. in this case, a 3.1 beta tester discovered that drdos doesn't work with win 3.1 so called dr for help. dr called us for help on online. the online guys wanted to help, because "dr is a paying customer". i told them no. From steveb Sun Jul 28 21:35:21 1991
######################################################## 241To: bradsi karlst philba ralphl Subject: Digital Research Date: Sun Jul 28 21:35:18 1991 bard [sic, "brad"] pls make sure we are not supporting DRI anywhere in the company with this stuff thx >From bradsi Mon Jul 29 07:35:30 1991 To: jancl pattys Subject: Digital Research Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 07:35:27 PDT We should not be providing Digital Research any assistance getting their os to work with our software. Our software supports ms dos, not dr dos. It's completely up to them to figure out and resolve any problems that may occur. Just recently, a situation came up where a win 3.1 beta tester discovered that dr dos doesn't work with win 3.1 and called dr for help. DR submitted an SR to their online account, and the techs were dutifully following up very conscientiously. We are not to help them, paying customer or not. Windows supports MS-DOS and PC-DOS 3.1 and above. Thanks. ######################################################## 242 >From bradsi Mon Jul 29 07:36:48 1991 To: philba tomle Subject: nigelt Date: Mon 29 Jul [19]91 07:36:45 PDT the nt guys had big problems with nigel. please talk to paulma to understand what happened. I will do the same when I get back. ######################################################## 243 >From bradsi Mon Jul 29 07:43:15 1991 To: russs Subject: Re: FW: Intelligence on Novell-DR DOS deal Date: Mon, 29 Jul [19]91 07:43:13 PDT thanks the tough question in all this is whether novell's intentions are offensive or defensive. there are signs of both. some novell people (and market watchers) are saying defensive. other statements by novell, including darrell miller, clearly are offensive (control of the desktop). [STAMPED] EXH 8 DATE 2/13/[20]02 WITNESS Silverberg MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1178530 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS 5050789 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 407 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 959A Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 959A Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2 To: winbugCc: bambi scottq lawren Subject: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Windows Bug Report Title: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Opened By: lawren Sev: 1 WinVer: 3.10 47 Product: Drivers Area: Bambi Origin: Internal Sugg. Assign: scottq DOSVer: 6.00 Mode: high Name: Phone: Problem Statement: Had run fine other times. Did a "DIR" and I got garbage characters. Chkdsk found well over 100 files with crosslinked files, invalid clusters, and invaild [sic] & incorrect lengths. Machine Configuration: Cumulus 386 2M VGA Config.Sys: Autoexec.Bat: Form #; SYS003 Version #: 2.00 Revision Date: 08/22/[19]91 ################################################################## 476 >From karlst Thu Sep 19 11:55:06 1991 To: steveti Cc: bradsi philba Subject: jeanp/vacation Date: Thu Sep 19 11:34:54 1991 I believe we've settled the issue with jeanp regarding his vacation. Don't call him. Kudos to bradsi for making this happen ################################################################## 477 >From philba Thu Sep 19 11:58:17 1991 To: lawren Cc: bambi bradsi lawren scottq Subject: Re: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Date: Thu, 19 Sep [19]91 11:34:11 PDT [STAMPED] MS 5055905 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 479A C.A. No. 2:96CV645B [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1195217 CONFIDENTIAL Plaintiff's Exhibit 959A Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2 tee hee hee...thats [sic] what you get for running an incompatible OSsorry, I couldnt' resist. Scott, let's figure this out asap - could be a problem thats [sic] lurking for real DOS. >From lawren Thu Sep 19 11:34:15 1991
To: winbug Cc: bambi scottq lawren Subject: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Windows Bug Report Title: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Opened By: lawren Sev: 1 WinVer 3.10 47 Product: Drivers Area: Bambi Origin: Internal Sugg.Assign: scottq DOSVer: 6.00 Mode: high Name: Phone: Problem Statement: Had run fine other times. Did a "DIR" and I got garbage characters. Chkdsk found well over 100 files with crosslinked files, invalid clusters, and invalid & incorrect lengths. Machine Configuration: Cumulus 386 2M VGA Config.Sys: Autoexec.Bat: Form #: SYS 003 Version #: 2.00 Revision Date: 08/22/[19]91 ####################################################### 478 >From greglo Thu Sep 19 12:10:11 1991 To: bradsi Subject: Re: bambi Date: Thu, 19 Sep [19]91 12:05:40 PDT The new WzMail version (which uses the WinMail document handling routines rather than the ancient DH library) also gives you a huge perf boost. If you use WzMail you want it. [STAMPED] MS 5055906 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1195218 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 979 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 979 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2 [HANDWRITTEN] Non-responsive material redacted######################################################## 603 >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 10:54:53 1991 To: joachimk peterbra steveb Cc: alexn jeffl jonro markbu richab richardf ronh teresach Subject: Re: Compaq Windows status Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 10:54:43 PDT you're asying [sic, prob. "saying"] that when someone buys compaq dos for $99, they also get windows for free. but if you want windows alone, it cost you $150 and compaq wants windows for free am I missing something why this is good for us? don't forget that today, retail is still 61% of windows revenue. ######################################################## 604 >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:23:54 1991 To: philba Subject: Re: dr Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 11:23:53 PDT let's talk. >From philba Sat Sep 28 10:59:13 1991 To: bradsi Cc: karlst Subject: Re: dr Date: Thu 26 Sep [19]91 10:45:39 PDT Sorry for the silence -- dont [sic] interpret it as ignoring you. The approach that ralph and I have discussed is to use a vxd to extend' dos by patching it. In this case, we would create a subfunction in the findfirst/findnext family -- findabunch to allow filemanager to make a single call to get directory information. We would not patch unknown OSs and most likely would only patch MS DOS 5.x. The big advantage here is that it provides a legitimate performance improvement. However, it won't prevent us from running on foriegn [sic] OSs (unless we explicitly decide to refuse to run) -- they just wont [sic] run as fast. This hasn't been implemented yet and to be honest it sends a mixed message about project team focus. The work necessary would be 3 days of ralphl's time to implement and then a somewhat open-ended use of it by various components. We definitely want to do winfile and user file list box. Neither of which is a huge amount of time (1-2 days each to implement and thoroughly test). The network guys may want to implement this in their redir. [STAMPED] DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 1114 [STAMPED] MS 0098698 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS98 0181665 CONFIDENTIAL Plaintiff's Exhibit 979 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2 Is this the approach you want to take?
Or would you prefer a simple check and refuse to run? That's a lot
easier but clearly quite defeatable. I'll come and talk to you about it.
>From bradsi Fri Sep 27 22:44:35 1991 To: philba Subject: dr Date: Fri Sep 27 22:44:10 1991 can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to bind ourselves closer to ms dos? since you haven't been replying to my messages, I do n't [sic] know how to interprety [sic] your silence. Let me emphasize the importance: ibm is going to annoucne [sic] the drdos deal at comdex (almost 100% certain). OK? ####################################################### 605 >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:35:49 1991 To: joachimk peterbra steveb Cc: alexn jeffl jonro markbu richab richardf ronh teresach Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 11:35:40 PDT we cannot have compaq sell Win+OS product that is cheaper than what we sell windows alone for. even if it's [sic] works just on compaq machines, we thus tell the market that we are dramatically overcharging for windows. and our retail business goes down the tubes. if they want to offer their dos, which includes windows, for $200, then we're talking. yes, I want the compaq business but not to give to them for nothing and kill my retail business, too. they realize they are falling behind and they have to do something to fix it. ####################################################### 606 >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:40:25 1991 To: karlst lisacr Subject: Re: file open/save as changing dir behavior Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 11:40:23 PDT ok. include 123/w. let us know. ####################################################### 607 >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:42:13 1991 To: jimall paulma Subject: RE sys mgt Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 11:42:11 PDT ok they are yours. the winlogin schedule has always been dec-jan. should finish dec but if it stretches into jan, you shouldn't count on them jan 1. >From jimall Sat Sep 28 11:39:04 1991
To: bradsi paulma Subject: RE: sys mgt Date: Sat Sep28 11:38:38 PDT 1991 I have been assuming ericpe was coming to win4 by year end. It sounds like this winlogin is slipping. I will be happy to take tedst too. jim >From bradsi Fri Sep 27 10:10:57 1991
To: jimall paulma Subject: sys mgt Date: Fri, 27 Sep [19]91 10:08:19 PDT [STAMPED] MS 0098699 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS98 0181666 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 981 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 981 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2 * Do we want to do a [sic] IBM only
Slick for new HW? Makes sense to me. This is straight forwared using
approach I've outlines [sic] for our OEM Packaged Product (and the work
to do this is only a minor increment over what we're already planning
on doing for the generic packaged product).
Lest there be objections, I intend to have Davebe start on OEM DOS Setup changed to support OEM Packaged Slick product as soon as some cycles free up (but lower priority than DOS 5.0a). Comments? Eric. ######################################################## 323 >From mackm Mon Sep 30 08:10:33 1991 To: bens raype Cc: bradsi Subject: FW: david bernard Date: Mon Sep 30 08:13:27 PDT 1991 Good News! Thanks Brad. >From bradsi Fri Sep 27 13:59:53 1991
To: lynner mackm Subject: david bernard Date: Fri, 27 Sep [19]91 13:58:11 PDT finally talked to him. he's going to try to come out end of next week. We are still a bit apart on salary, I didn't up it. I only want to do that once and close him on the spot. Hopefully that can happen next week. ######################################################## 324 >From alexn Mon Sep 30 08:11:16 1991 To: ericst Cc: bradsi jonro Subject: FW: oem weekly Date: Sun Sep 29 08:10:02 PDT 1991 Can we meet this week to get the first issue defined and initiated? I am out of town tomorrow, but back in for the rest of the week. How does Wednesday look? >From bradsi Sat Sep 28 13:08:11 1991
To: alexn ericst Cc: davidcol richt tomle Subject: oem weekly Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 13:05:57 PDT would be nice to get this started and keep it going on a weekly basis. thanks. ######################################################## 325 >From philba Mon Sep 30 08:15:02 1991 To: bradsi Cc: davidcol Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0 Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 07:57:50 PDT heh, heh, heh.... my proposal is to have bambi refuse on this alien OS. comments? [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1179289 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS 0098785 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 504 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B Plaintiff's Exhibit 981 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2 >From chuckst Sun Sep 29 17:16:46 1991To: mikedr philba scottq Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0 Date: Sun Sep 29 17:16:39 1991 I tracked down a serious incompatibility with DR-DOS 6 -- They don't use the 'normal' device driver interface for >32M partitions. Instead of setting the regular START SECTOR field to 0ffffh and then using a brand new 32-bit field the way MS-DOS has always done, they simply extended the start sector field by 16 bits. This seems like a foolish oversight on their part and will likely result in extensive incompatibilities when they try to run with 3rd part[y] device drivers. I've patched a version of Bambi to work with DRD6, and it seems to run Win 3.1 without difficulty. This same problem may have caused other problems with Win 3.1 and the swapfile under DRD6. It is possible to make Bambi work, assuming we can come up with a reasonably safe method for detecting DRD6. The runtime hit would be minimal in time and space, although we would have a couple of instructions in the main code path for checking the 'special' DRD6 flag. What do we think? Should we test further with the patched Bambi to see if there are any more incompatibilities???? ####################################################### 326 >From philba Mon Sep 30 08:16:27 1991 To: bradsi davidw Subject: Re: Intel/Dell Frame Buffer Windows Video Driver Date: Sat, 28 Sep [19]91 08:02:47 PDT hmm, putting 2 and 2 together. He has been around a lot lately. Brad, FredE is Fred Einstein who wrote the original (and highly buggy) 8514 driver and is not held [in] high regard by many windows developers. >From davidw Sun Sep 29 21:20:00 1991
To: bradsi philba Subject: Intel/Dell Frame Buffer Windows Video Driver Date: Sun 29 Sep [19]91 21:19:55 PDT (i haven't gone through all of my email yet, but ...) why does this have frede written all over it? david >From philba Fri Sep 27 09:47:43 191
never heard of it. >From bradsi Fri Sep 27 09:33:22
1991
know anything about this? >From carls Fri Sep 27 09:26:40 1991
I just saw some email that Intel is having some problems with a Windows driver for the joint Intel/Dell video frame buffer. I don't know if this is for Windows generally or just for the Multi-media extensions. This is where Intel/Dell hired MCS to do the driver. We are having an exec meeting at 11am. It would be best if Billg and Bradsi understood the issues prior to 11am so that we can respond to either complaints or requests for help. Please send mail on the status of this. ####################################################### 327 [STAMPED] MS 0098786 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1179290 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 984 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 984 Page 1 of 1] buggy) 8514 driver and is not held high regard by many windows developers.> From davidw Sun Sep 29 21:20:00 1991 To: bradsi philba Subject: Intel/Dell Frame Buffer Windows Video Driver Date: Sun 29 Sep [19]91 21:19:55 PDT (i haven't gone through all of my email yet, but ...) why does this have [indistinct. "freda"?] written all over it? david >From philba Fri Sep 27 09:47:43 1991
never heard of it. >From bradsi Fri Sep 27 09:33:22 1991
know anything about this? >From carts Fri Sep 27 09:26:40 1991
I just saw some email that Intel [indistinct] is having some problems with a Windows driver for the joint Intel [indistinct]/Dell video frame buffer. I don't know if this is for Windows generally or just for the Multi-media extensions. This is where Intel/Dell hired MCS to do the driver. We are having an exec meeting at 11 am. I twould be best if Billg and Bradsi understood the Issues prior to 11 am so that we can respond to either complaints or requests for help. Please send mail on the status of this. ######################################################## 327 >From davidcol Mon Sep 30 08:16:28 1991 To: bradsi philba Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0 Date: Mon Sep 30 08:15:57 1991 It should say unsupported version of DOS. ######################################################## 328 From: karlst Mon Sep 30 08:20:17 1991 [Hour of day is indistinct, might be 06 instead of 08] To: win31dev winprog Cc: bradsi jobren [indistinct] philba Subject: HOTLIST SUSPENDED Date: Mon Sep 30 08:18:03 1991 [Hour of day is indistinct, might be 06 instead of 08] [STAMPED] MS 5054012 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1143027 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] EXH 13 DATE 5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 985 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 985 Page 1 of 1] [Printed text.]"We are suppose[d] to give the user the option of continuing after the warning. However, we should surely crash at some point shortly later." - and yet Opera continues to spread their FUD about MSN sending bad data to Opera browsers... ------------------------------------ Depo. Ex. 1722 message during copy files marcw, andyhi swapfile rework craigc machine config. tuning paulke lim compatibility work mikecole dlg for setup from windows marcw USER work: SendMessage revalidation mikesch Log error conditions sankar gp fault cleanup neilk layer size, speed opts neilk Fix edit ctrl msgs sankar change api's - hInst/hMod jeffbog Local memory validation jont GDI/T2 work VDMX support gunterz, jeanp Font file preload amitc Cleanup font cache code gunterz Finish remove glbl lock kensy, davidw, amitc Complete Fontmapper work davidw Other Critical Work Bambi in build 50 philba p.s. By now, everyone should have seen rickem's mail regarding PUCUS. We'll need to spend some time today fixing our source tree after Friday's crash. ####################################################### 329 >From davidcol Mon Sep 30 08:24:05 1991 To: karlst philba Subject: supported DOSes Cc: bradsi Date: Mon Sep 30 06:23:47 1991 It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it. I checked with legal, and they are working up some text we are suppose[sic] to display if someone tries to setup or run Windows on a[sic] alien operating system. We are suppose[sic] to give the user the option of continuing after the warning. However, we should surely crash at some point shortly later. Now to the point of this mail. How shall we proceed on the issue of making sure Win 3.1 requires MS DOS. We need to have some pretty fancy internal checks to make sure we are on the right one. Maybe there are several very sophisticated checks so the competitors get put on a treadmill. Aaronr had some pretty wild ideas after 3 or so beers, earleh has some too. We need to make sure this doesn't distract the team for a couple of reasons 1) the pure distraction factor 2) the less people know about exactly what gets done, the better. Please advise. ####################################################### 330 >From paulma Mon Sep 30 08:29:45 1991 To: carriet Subject: Harel Kodesh Cc: andyp bradsi daveth, karenh(?) nathanm(?) Date: Mon Sep 30 08:29:22 1991 This is a good guy whom I know who works at Motorola Mobile Data in Bothell. He is a D12/D13 developer/development manager - smart and lots of energy. He is tired of "six sigma" bureaucracy at Motorola, and [sic:in] fact that Moto as a company is strapped for cash to invest in its[sic] products - so he is looking at offers from Slate and Rational in the Bay Area. He _Gates_ [STAMPED] DEPOSITION EXHIBIT _84_ 2/28/02 [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1179299 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS 0098788 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 510 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 990 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 990 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2 time and effort needed to become productive with their computers."Microsoft is committed to supporting our users who choose the Macintosh and CD-ROM as part of their computing environment," said Mike Maples, senior vice president of applications for Microsoft. "With this updated CD-ROM version of The Microsoft Office, we are providing users with an efficient way of getting the applications they need for professional and personal use." CD-ROM Version Provides Extra Benefits for Users Because these four applications are included on one compact disc, installing them on the machines becomes a very easy task -- simply run the installation programs right from the CD; no more switching floppy disks in and out. In addition, the storage capabilities of CD-ROM allow the documentation to be included on the disc. This means users do not have to take the time to search their offices for product manuals, then scan through the manuals looking for the answers. They can access all of the information online -- as they need it. (Hard copies of all documentation are available from Microsoft upon request for $15.50 plus tax.) Another benefit of CD-ROM is the audio segments that are included throughout the online documentation. These spoken tutorials talk users through a process while they watch what is happening on the computer screen. System Requirements, Pricing and Availability The Microsoft Office on CD-ROM will be available in early October 1991. Version 1.5 has a suggested retail price of $750 from now until December 31, 1991. Registered users of version 1.0 may upgrade to version 1.5 for $129. (All prices listed are U.S. suggested retail prices.) The CD-ROM version of The Microsoft Office for the Macintosh requires a Macintosh Plus, Classic, LC, SE, or II-family with an Apple or compatible CD-ROM drive; at least 2 MB of RAM; and System 6.0.4 or higher. Microsoft Mail is compatible with AppleShareR and EtherTalkR, and requires an AppleTalk or compatible local area network. Additional Microsoft Mail server software must be purchased seperately to use the workstation version included on the CD. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ "MSFT") develops, markets and supports a wide range of microcomputer software for business and professional use, including operating systems, network products, languages and applications, as well as books, hardware and CD-ROM products for the microcomputer marketplace. ######## Microsoft and PowerPoint are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Apple, AppleTalk, AppleShare, EtherTalk and Macintosh are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. ####################################################### 441 >From scottq Mon Sep 30 17:48:06 1991 To: bradsi Subject: bambi Date: Mon Sep 30 17:48:00 1991 How do you power-down your machine at night? If you are running windows and you power down, you will probably get lost clusters with or without bambi loaded. Also, you will get lost clusters if you use local reboot. Scott ####################################################### 442 >From markp Mon Sep 30 17:53:55 1991 To: a-long bradsi brentk chrisg davidds davidtry jodyg johnen jont neilk richp richsa sandeeps(?) steveja terrib(?) Cc: a-janj georga(?) Subject: Re: bambi v.35 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 91 17:53:27 PDT Where is it, Jody? [STAMPED] MS 5049397 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1143037 CONFIDENTIAL Plaintiff's Exhibit 990 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2 >From jodyg Mon Sep 30 17:39:11 1991To: a-long bradsi brentk chrisg davidds davidtry johnen jontmarkp neilk richp richsa sandeeps steveja terrib Cc: a-janj georga Subject: bambi v.35 Date: Mon Sep 30 17:38:53 1991 You should update to the new version. >From scottq Mon Sep 30 17:27:56 1991 To: bambi georgef Subject: bambi v.35 Date: Mon Sep 30 17:27:02 1991 Bambi v.35 has passed developer testing. The primary change fixes a major problem with accessing logical units on external hard disks. Also, DR DOS is detected (needs testing!) and bambi refuses to load. Finally, ignore was removed from the pop-up dialog box. Scott [handwritten:] Privileged material redacted [STAMPED] MS 5049398 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1143038 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1048 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1048 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 1 >From bradsi Tue Oct 29 13:40:01 1991To: davidcol(?) philba Subject: DR and Win 3.1 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:40:01 PST looks like dr-dos works with win 3.1. >From richf Tue Oct 29 12:21:15 1991
To: bradc bradsi Subject: DR and Win 3.1 Date: Tue Oct 29 13:20:30 PDT 1991 I loaded DR 6 on my own system about a week ago and have been using it since. Although I was unable to get Windows to run in enhanced mode using DR's EMM386.SYS, I do run it using HIDOS.SYS, their equivalent to himem. So while I have no UMB support, it doesn't matter much since I use all Win apps. I was also able to run standard mode using HIDOS.SYS. I haven't had any UAE or crashing problems of note. The only difference, which I haven't tested so I can't confirm, seems to be that printing from Winword 2 is much slower than it was under MS-DOS 5. In short, I haven't seen any basic kernel incompatibilities. ####################################################### 49 >From bradsi Tue Oct 29 13:40:21 1991 To: bradc richf Subject: Re: DR and Win 3.1 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:40:21 PST which version of win 3.1? >From richf Tue Oct 29 12:21:15 1991
To: bradc bradsi Subject: DR and Win 3.1 Date: Tue Oct 29 13:20:30 PDT 1991 I loaded DR 6 on my own system about a week ago and have been using it since. Although I was unable to get Windows to run in enhanced mode using DR's EMM386.SYS, I do run it using HIDOS.SYS, their equivalent to himem. So while I have no UMB support, it doesn't matter much since I use all Win apps. I was also able to run standard mode using HIDOS.SYS. I haven't had any UAE or crashing problems of note. The only difference, which I haven't tested so I can't confirm, seems to be that printing from Winword 2 is much slower than it was under MS-DOS 5. In short, I haven't seen any basic kernel incompatibilities. ####################################################### 50 >From bradsi Tue Oct 29 13:45:26 1991 To: steveb Subject: 6.167 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:45:26 PST i played with it for about 45 min this morning. it's quite easy to crash, even hard hang that requires a power cycle. lots of "uae"s. still has a long way to go stability wise. though they have clearly made a lot of progress since the last drop we had. the workplace shell is useble[sic] and win apps do run, mostly. easy to run out of memory doing simple things, and it was on a 9M machine. one nice thing is that way to config a dos vm. i'll make sure the dos guys have a look. ####################################################### 50 >From bradsi Tue Oct 29 13:46:48 1991 To: bradc mackm(?) mikedr tomle Subject: os2 2.0 6.167 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:46:47 PST it's running in chrissh's perf lab. check it out. the nice thing is the way the[sic] let you config a dos vm, essentially managing the config.sys in a dialog box. [STAMPED] Depo. Ex. 970 [STAMPED] EXH 26 DATE 5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] MS 5065665 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1179419 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 543 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B 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] [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [hand-written] Non-responsive Material Redacted [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 563 CA. No. 2:96CV645B [STAMPED] X0592196 [Page Footer] WinMail 1.21 philba Tue Feb 23 16:49:36 1993 Page: 160 [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1179462 CONFIDENTIAL >From chuckst Wed Nov 6 18:38:46 1991 To: philba Cc: scottq Subject: Scott's 9/30/31 mail re: DRDOS Date: Tue Feb 23 17:07:06 PDT 1993 | >From scottq Mon Sep 30 13:57:38 1991 | To: dosdev | Subject: detect dr dos 6.0 | Date: Mon Sep 30 13:50:35 1991 | | Does anybody know bow to detect dr dos 6.0? Bambi will not | run properly on dr dos 6.0 because of a quirk in their device driver | handling, so we need to detect them. | | Scott | Prom chuckst Wed Nov 6 18:40:05 1991 To: philba Cc: scottq Subject: More Bambi/DR-DOS mail Date: Tue Feb 23 17:07:11 PDT 1993 | >From chuckst Sun Sep 29 17:IS:46 1991 | To: mikedr philba scottq | Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0 | Date: Sun Sep 29 17:16:39 1991 | | I tracked down a serious incompatibility with DR-DOS 6 -- They don't use | the "normal" device driver interface for >32M partitions. Instead of | setting the regular START SECTOR field to Offffh and then using a brand | new 32-bit field the way MS-DOS has always done, they simply extended | the start sector field by 16 bits. | | This seems like a foolish oversight on their part and will likely result | in extensive incompatibilities when they try to run with 3rd part device | drivers. | | I've patched a version of Bambi to work with DRD6, and it seems to run | Win 3.1 without difficulty. This same problem may have caused other | problems with Win 3.1 and the swapfile under DRD6. | | It is possible to make Bambi work, assuming we can come up with a | reasonably Bafe method for detecting DRD6. The runtime hit would | be minimal in time and space, although we would have a couple of | instructions in the main code path for checking the 'special' DRD6 | flag. | | What do we think? Should we test further with the patched Bambi to | see if there are any more incompatibilities???? | >From cfauckst Wed Nov 6 18:55:00 1391 To: philba scottq Subject.: Bambi/DRDS mail from 10/16/91 Date: Tue Feb 23 17:07:22 PDT 1993 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 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1130 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1130 Page 1 of 1] To: winwar
Subject: 286 Date: Mon Dec 2 22:36:29 1991 ?: 20434 512/Comments, etc. 30-Nov-91 10:38:12 Sb: Build 58 is RAM-hungry ! Fm: Tanj Bennett 70642,1211 To: sysop (X) I fired up build 58 on a 286 and noticed that it eats a lot more RAM than 3.0 used to. 3.0 gave around 1.5M available memory on a 2M machine, while build 58 is down to 1.07M. How representative is this of the final shipping version? Your docs indicate this build is supposed to be a trial run at the real thing. I`m surprised to see a 400kb hit, roughly 100% growth when you consider DOS accounts for some of the memory. What features of 3.1 caused the growth in RAM usage ? ####################################################### 220 >From bradsi Tue Dec 3 10:25:49 1991 To: donc winwar Cc: bobgu bobt jont timbr Subject: Re: Borland and Toolhelp Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 10:25:55 PST if we break their apps when we install, it will serve them right. guess they took the approach of shoot first, explain later. ####################################################### 221 >From philba Tue Dec 3 10:28:29 1991 To: bradsi tomle(?) Cc: mackm(?) Subject: Re: slick Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 10:25:26 PST Current plan shows development in Jan/Feb, testing in Feb/Mar and beta test in Mar/Apr so its[sic] got to be available before mid feb for the beta test. Davebe is looking into the resource issue now. I told him that he can evaluate the schedule and tell me what makes sense. It may make sense to add another body and do some preliminary work for 6.0 to be more efficient. Diversion or intermediate point? Probably a little of both. The objective of msdos/windows merge is to combine win 3.1 and msdos 5.0(b?) into a single package with a seamless install. I believe that ("(b?)" is part of actual text.) there will be a fair amount of code that could be reused and certainly the team will learn a lot that will transfer to 6.0. Come on up and I'll be glad to further expound on these topics. >From tomle Tue Dec 3 08:26:40 1991
To: bradsi philba Subject: Re: slick Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 08:27:46 PST Eric is evaluating one for me but I don't feel we have our hands on a great one yet. I really need to be clear on what the expectations for slick completion is. Depending on the time frame I am not as confident that slick is a technology on the path to MS-Dos 6 as much as it is a diversion. Phil, can you help me understand what the objectives for your project are? Tom >From bradsi Mon Dec 2 20:53:54 1991
To: philba Subject: slick Cc: tomle Date: Mon Dec 2 20:53:40 1991 [STAMPED] EXH 60 DATE 5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1112804 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MSC 00730268 [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 5614 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 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 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] [STAMPED] EXH 77 DATE 5/31/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] MS 5055650 CONFIDENTIAL ###################################################### 532 >From peterhey Tue Dec 17 16:43:09 1991 To: bradsi Subject: Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 17:41:19 PST this is the letter referred to in my other mail requesting OK of advance release of Win 3.1 launch date to OEMs. | >From peterhey Tue Dec 17 15:05:45 1991 | To: alexn billmi jonro josephk oemman richt | cc: jonl peterhey wddirect | Subject: 1st Win 3.1 Launch Letter to OEMs | Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 16:03:20 PST | | | Below is the letter created for mailing to our OEM Windows | licensees--the first in a series to build support for the | Win 3.1 launch. Thank you for submitting your conments | asap. We aim to drop later this week. | *********************************************************** | \024December 18, 1991 | Dear Windows Hardware Vendor, | | Windows 3.1 will be launched at Windows World on April 6. | Microsoft is pouring unprecented resources into the Windows | 3.1 launch to make it an unqualified success. The main | focus of this letter is to help you leverage Microsoft's | enormous investment. | | FACT: We will be investing more promotional, | marketing, and support dollars in the Win 3.1 | launch than any other product launch in Microsoft | history. | | In many respects, Windows World 1992 vill be the 3.1 Launch | Event. This Windows release will be the most comprehensive | and best supported ever. We believe all the conditions are | right for a massive shift to Windows. A complete foundation | of Windows Applications is in place, 70% of all PCs sold are | Windows capable, and Windows 3.1 is the right product. | | FACT: The Windows 3.1 beta program is the largest and | most exhaustive ever in the PC industry. | | Feedback from our 15,000 beta testers has been | overwhelmingly positive. The product's improved fit and | finish, substantial ease of use, reliability, and | performance improvements deliver on the Windows promise to | make using PCs easier for everyone. | | FACT: In developing Windows 3.1, over 1,100 | modifications were made to Windows 3.0. These | changes were focused in four general areas: | improved usability, greater reliability, enhanced | applications support and new technologies (such as | Windows for Pen Computing). | | Windows 3.1 represents a dramatic evolution to an already | highly successful product. We are committed to working | closely with you to make the Windows 3.1 launch a very | successful launch for you as well as Microsoft. | Specifically, we would like to work with you on the | following: | | o Windows 3.1 Compatibility | o Windows logo Program | o Pre-launch Technical Training | o Windows World Participation | o Windows Upgrade Program | o Windows hardware design optimization | | Below you will find descriptions of our activities in these | areas and how you can benefit by participating. Details on | how to reach us via the 3.1 Launch Hotline will be in our | next letter to you. In the interim, your Microsoft Account | Representative, or his/her designee, will be contacting you | soon to help answer any questions you have as well as learn | more about your plans for this important event. | | | Sincerely, | | | OEM Launch Conmunications | | | | Windows 3.1 Launch Programs | | | Windows 3.1 Compatibility | We strongly encourage you to test all of your PC lines for | Windows compatibility. Clearly communicating compatibility | in marketing communications and collaterals will enhance the | appeal of your systems to purchasers of Windows | applications. Microsoft developed the Hardware | Compatibility Test (HCT) to measure and certify a PC's | ability to compatibly run Windows. With only minimal manual | intervention, an OEM can execute the HCT on all models | suitable to run Windows and submit the results (which are | automatically compiled onto a floppy) to Microsoft for | analysis. | | FACT: In the first nine months of 1991, sales of | Windows applications by the top vendors totalled | $711 million, an increase of 85% over the full- | year 1990 sales total of $385 million. | | If the results indicate compatibility, we will provide to | you the new Microsoft Windows logo to use freely in your | marketing and manufacturing efforts. | | FACT: The name of each PC model that successfully | passes the test will be entered on the Hardware | Compatibility List (HCL) distributed with each | copy of Windows 3.1. | | The HCT is part of the beta OAK and ODK products. It can | also be obtained by contacting your Microsoft Account | Representative. A application to license the Windows Logo | will be sent automatically to all OEMs submitting successful | HCT results. | | | Windows Logo Program | | Microsoft has created a new logo for Windows to provide | useful information to customers shopping for Windows | hardware like your own. Customers will look for the logo as | a statement that the product on which it appears supports or | in some way explicitly contributes to the Microsoft Windows | Operating System. | | FACT: Sales of Windows applications in 1991 will | approximate $1 billion. | | This logo was prominently displayed at Fall COMDEX '91 and | will be an integral part of the packaging for Windows | beginning with the 3.1 release. A black-and-white rendition | is pictured below: | | (graphic of logo inserted here) | | We strongly encourage you to license use of this new logo | (at no charge) and include it on your product packaging and | in your promotional materials. | | FACT: Microsoft is encouraging independent software | vendors to assimilate the new Windows logo into | their packaging and promotional materials. | | Given the importance of compatibility between personal | computers and the new 3.1 Windows release, we are | requesting all hardware system vendors to complete the HCT | before receiving rights to use the logo. | | | Pre-Launch Technical Training | | As vendors of Windows products, we know that the 3.1 upgrade | will trigger calls to your support lines as well as | Microsoft's. We want to help you prepare for these calls. | Accordingly, we are planning Windows 3.1 Product Support | Training Seminars to be held around the U.S. in the month | before the launch. | | Please note that because of capacity constraints attendance | at these seminars will be restricted to Product Support | professionals only. Pre-registration will be requested to | guarantee a spot. Cities, dates and times are still being | determined and will be cannunicated to you in our next | mailing. | | | Windows World Participation | | As the largest Windows-focused tradeshow in the country, | Windows World is a major marketing opportunity for any | vendor of Windows-related products. | | FACT: This year Interface expects between 60,000 and | 65,000 attendees to the combined Windows World and | Spring COMDEX shows in Chicago. | | FACT: Over 55% of last year's attendees were Corporate | End Users and Buyers. | | Enclosed you should find an exhibitor brochure for the 1992 | edition of the Windows World Show. Interface expects around | 1,000 exhibitors to sign up for the combined Windows World | and COMDEX shows, making Chicago the second largest computer | industry gathering in the U.S. | | FACT: By this past November, exhibitor registrations | for Windows World '92 had already passed the total | number of exhibitors that appeared at Windows | World '91. | | Our plans to launch. Windows 3.1 at the show only add to an | already exciting event. We expect Windows World to be a | forum for the launch of a number of other important hardware | and software products from a range of vendors. Don't miss | the chance to be there and demonstrate the strengths of your | Windows PCs. Contact The Interface Group at (XXX) XXX-XXXX | Ext 4023 to sign up as an exhibitor. | | | Windows 3.1 Upgrade Offer | | We strongly encourage you to address your users' upgrade | needs. We expect most Windows 3.0 users will upgrade to | Windows 3.1 because it offers dramatic improvements over 3.0 | in a number of areas, including performance, reliability, | and usabilility. Upgrading end-users represents a | substantial revenue opportunity for OEMs, particularly those | that have bundled Windows in the past and thereby possess a | large end-user registration database. | | As a service to OEMs who wish to make the Windows 3.1 | upgrade available to customers without assuming | responsibility for fulfillment, we would like to provide | you, at our expense, upgrade coupons that Microsoft will | fulfill directly through the mail. These coupons will be | Business Reply Cards that should fit in most mailings and | provide your customers the convenience of ordering the new | release through the mail. Coupons will be delivered to OEMs | requesting them by March 15. You can request these coupons | through our Launch Hotline, or through .your Microsoft | Account Representative. | | | Windows Hardware Engineering Conference | | On March 1-3 at the San Francisco Harriot, Microsoft will | host a conference and mini-exhibition aimed at helping your | best engineers build better Windows PCs. | | Why focus on building Windows PCs? | | FACT- The Windows software standard virtualizes the | hardware interface for application vendors, | thereby liberating PC vendors from the need to | conform to a rigid hardware standard--providing | room for greater differentiation and | profitability. | | The Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) will | brinq OEMs together vith Microsoft's Windows device driver | engineers and a wide range of independent hardware vendors | active in display, audio, networking, storage, processor and | other technologies. The object; three days of technical | discussions reviewing the widening range of creative | alternatives for PC engineering. | | WinHEC's general sessions will consider current and upcoming | evolutions in the Windows device driver interfaces | (including updates on Windows NT and multimedia), flesh out | the new technical directions disclosed at the OEM briefing | and provide detailed insights into the function of the | Windows execution performance tests now being developed by | leading industry analysts. Participants in the session on | upcoming Windows products will be required to sign non- | disclosure agreements prior to entry. | | WinHEC is being timed to allow you to begin to formulate | Windows product plans prior to WinWorld so that you can | address customer needs and top-of-mind concerns at that | forum. | | For more information on the Windows Hardware Engineering | Conference, contact your Microsoft Account Representative. | After January 5, you may call directly for an invitation and | conference brochure (7:30a.m. - 5:30p.m. PST, Mon. - Fri.): | | XXX-XXX-XXXX in US/Canada. | XXX_XXX_XXXX other International | XXX_XXX_XXXX FAX | | Summary | | Windows is becoming huge--bigger than we ever anticipated. | We strongly encourage you to leverage Microsoft's revised | and expanding investment plans by: | | o Executing the HCT on all appropriate PCs and | returning results to Microsoft for analysis | o Licensing and leveraging the new Windows logo. | o Preparing for the Windows 3.1 Launch by attending | pre-launch training and contracting for a booth at Windows World | o Aggressively exploiting Windows 3.1 upgrade opportunities | o Attending the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference | in San Francisco on March 1-3, 1992 to obtain | ideas for new, creative hardware designs. | | Catch the wave. | | You'll be hearing from us again in January. Until then, | have a happy holiday. | ###################################################### 533 Fran adamt Tue Dec 17 16:43:31 1991 To: richt timbre Cc: adamt bradsi chriswo davesm deniser gerardz gregg leighj maroc marked Subject: PSS Text Issue Standard Mode: Bad Fault in MS-DOS Extender. Fault: 000D Stack Dump: 0000 0000 0070 Raw fault frame: EC=0000 IP=5DlD CS=0397 FL=3006 SP=000A SS=02F7 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
###################################################### 223 >From andyhi Mon Dec 16 09:30:31 1991 To: kalak winbeta Cc: bradsi Subject: HOT: please sign up Date: Mon Dec 16 09:27:33 PDT 1991 Please sign up and see if we can get on the first wave of final beta shipments. Thanks 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.
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.
This sounds familiar doesn't it? If you think we already know about this, I won't follow up. 15-Dec-91 16-.21:05 Sb: Build 61b problems Em: Mark Aronson 71167,2470 To: Andy Thomas (V3.l Sysop) 73650,50 I upgrading fran build 58 (that worked great) to build 61b I would always get: 'Win Setup caused a general Protection fault in module setup.exe at 0015:096b' then windows would force me to close at the DOS prompt I saw Standard Mode: Bad Fault in MS-DOS Extender. Fault: 000D Stack Dump: 0000 0000 0070 Raw fault frame: EC=0000 IP=5DlD CS=0397 FL=3006 SP=000A SS=02F7 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
###################################################### 228 >From andyhi Mon Dec 16 09:47:43 1991 To: bradsi davidcol Cc: a-andyt a-stevef Subject; winbtb update Date: Man Dec 16 09:45:28 PDT 1991 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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?
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, 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 Subject: EMAIL auto_notify Re: RE: FW: Windows 3.10.060 Problems & Updates Received OK on Mon Dec 16 11:43 User Message follows 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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
| installation, I restarted windows, i no longer have net access from | the file manager, no net menus under Disk, apparently my winnet | driver is no longer loader, it was fine in build 61b. I exited | windows and rebooted the machine, same problem -- no net access from | file manager. | | running maintenance mode install shows that it detected my | net correctly : lan man 2.1 basic. ###################################################### 285 Fran nathanm Mon Dec 16 12:51:50 1991 To: billg bottnu bradsi cameronm carls darrylr davec davidcol davidw dennisad edwardj gaben jimall jonl karenh mikeraur paulma paulo philba raleighr rashid robg steveb stevesh tonyw w-pamed Subject: Winstone suggestions Date: Tue Dec 17 12:50:30 PDT 1991 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:
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
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 "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. ------------------------------------- Supporting our product line strategy We would like to be able to make a chart like the following. System | Win 3.1/16 Win32s Win NT 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 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 PC price/performance Selling Jumbo Selling TrueType Taking the technical high ground ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan
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.
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 what is the msdos 5 experience been like? ###################################################### 345 >From jnetter Mon Dec 16 15:42:40 1991 To: lorisi winsquad Cc: debbieh Subject: RE: Windows Focus Squad Meeting Reminder Date: Mon Dec 16 16:41:52 POT 1991 RussW is in Zurich and will not be available to attend...
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.
steveb will not be attending as well but the meeting
should still take place ..... thanks
Thanks. Alessandro ###################################################### 365 Fran bradc Mon Dec 16 16:54:21 1991 To: bradsi Subject: RE: EMI Date: Mon Dec 16 16:54:1l PDT 1991 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 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 | CSD is installed on the machine when you install IBM PCLP NET on it. | I believe that the PCLP NET install docs state which DOS 4.00 CSD is | required for it. I believe that different versions of the PCLP NET | require different DOS 4.00 CSD versions. I also believe that it is | very difficult to tell which DOS 4.00 CSD is installed on a particular | machine, you simply have to KNOW which one is installed. You might be | able to tell by looking at the date on the system files (IBMBI0.COM/ | IBMD0S.COM), but I am not at all sure about this. | | If you are running an IFSFUNC.EXE that does not match the IBM DOS 4.00 | CSD that you are running, you will get no warnings, the PCLP NET will | be perfectly happy to start. Windows Enhanced Mode will NOT be happy | to run correctly on such a machine however! All sorts of very very | peculiar stuff will start happening. The one case I know of is that | wierd stuff, breakage, hangs, reboots, bugs will start occuring. | Either in windows, or in the DOS applications, or in both. I do | not know the specific cases of all possible combonations of PCLP | and DOS 4.00 CDSs. | | I have been struggling with a machine in the network lab downstairs | 1041 (NETLAB 22, IBM PS/2 model 55sx) for three days!! This problem | is what was wrong with it. The IFSFUNC.EXE with PCLP NET that was | installed on this machine did not match the IBM DOS 4.00 CSD that was | installed on this machine. | | I am inclined to say the following things: | | All PCLP NET test machines are possibly broken. | | The validity of all PCLP testing that we have done is at risk. | | I know several factual things: | | All PCLP test machines need to be checked. | | All NET testers need to be educated how to not INVALIDATE | both the testing and the machines. | | All development folks who may be involved need to be educated. | I for one, am completly unwilling to look at anything having to | do with PCLP until it has been explained, al least to my satisfaction, | what the scope of the problem is. And when, or if, it is going to be | fixed. | | We have not been careful. We are now going to pay the price for not being | careful. It remains to be seen what that price is.......... ###################################################### 192 >From spanky!operdst Sun Dec 15 17:02:41 1991 Received: by darla.UUCP (DBCUS UUCP w/Smail); Sun, 15 Dec 91 17:00;39 PDT Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 17:00:39 PDT From: <operdst @darla.uucp=""> To: microsoft!bradc sergiop adamt richf dianet bradsi johncon richba Subject: DOS 5 mtd Shipments... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1243 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 1 of 16 To: Joachim Kempin. DistributionFrom: Jeff Lum Date: Februrary 25, 1992 Re: January Europe OEM Sales Status Report Attached is the European OEM Sales status report and US OEM sales status reports for January. Please provide me with any feedback that you deem appropriate. Copies of more detailed reports from each subsidiary or account managers are available upon request. Distribution: Reif(Ralf?) Skoglund(?) MSAB Bengt Akerlind(?) MSAB Peter Slum(?) MSAG Petslek(?) Da(?) Smedt MSBV Hans Rensal?(?) MSBV Jochen Heinik(?) MSGMBH Juergen Hu?h MSGMBH Egon Salmutter(?) MSGESMBH David Svendson(?) MSLTO Sandy Duncan MSLTO Mohol(?) L?oomb?(?) MSSARL Peacel(?) Martin MSSARL Umberto(?) P?olucci(?) MS SPA Mauri?o(?) Bodino(?) MSSPA Ign???(?) F?u(?) MSSRL Sunir(?) K?poor(?) MS Europe David Britton MS Europe Robbie(?) Beck MS Europe Hans(?) Apel MS Europe Bernard(?) Vergnes MS Europe Tim B??rd(?) 10N/1261(?) Peter Bramen(?) 10N/1314 Brad(?) Chass(?) 3/2046(?) Mark Chestnut(?) 10N/14??(?) Dougl?s(?) J?ckson ?S/1077 Arne(?) Josefeberg(?) BP/8181(?) Dwight Krouse(?) 1/1080 Paul Maritz(?) 2/2045 Nell(?) Milter(?) 8M/2258(?) Lorl(?) Morrison(?) 10N/124?(?) Sergle(?) Fineds(?) ?/205?(?) Frenz Reu(?) ?5/2122 Brer?????????rg(Smudged on purpose?) '???4??(Smudged on purpose?) Carl(?) Stertz(?) 2/2100(?) Adam(?) Tayl?r(?) 3/2052(?) John Williams 6/2061 [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] **MICROSOFT SECRET** [STAMPED] MS7035050 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1343[?] [illegible] [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1164632 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 2 of 16] January Status ReportEurope OEM Sales Jeff Lum. Director
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.
** MICROSOFT SECRET **
2 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035051 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164633 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 3 of 16] General IssuesAB 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. 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. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
2 [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). General NewsAB 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. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
4 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035053 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164635 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 5 of 16] Account NewsCompaq announces sales of $873 million for O4CY91 showing improvement over Q2 and Q3. Net income was $131 million. Compaq announces agreement to resell Novell Netware. Compaq ands SGI joint venture agreement.Sofboume has fired their president and laid off 30% of their employees within this last month. Philips: Rob Hamersma, the Managing Director of Philips Consumer Electronics, has bean replaced by Lars Nyberg. Mr. Nyberg comes from Philips Information Systems. CompUSA: Artisoft shipping free software, diske, and documentation. Introducing new Slim line machines in March. Creative Labs: Will introduce a 16 bit sound card in June. Media Vision: Will introduce new portable sound board that plugs into printer port in March. Headland Technology: Getting out of the sound board business. NCR - The WPD reorganization is complete and Clemson now handles all softwara managament. Representatives from all of the key NCR organizations will be in Redmond on Febuary 10th to learn about MS OS/2 to NT Migration plan so they can assist their ISVs and customers in the transition. NCR - Received good news from 3140 group via Stevab conversation with Tom Mays that the 3140 will not be Hobbit (RISC) but will be most likely SL based architacture. ZDS - ZDS will offer 7 out of the 49 bids for DT4. During the first round of bidding, ZDS bid MS on all Windows bids. However ZDS bid Windows on fewer than half of their 7 bids. We are working to convince ZDS to bid MS and Windows on all bids. ZDS - announces further layoffs and a restructuring of field sales. Over 60 sales and support people are cut. ZDS - will reportedly be supplying IBM with a large quantity of portable machines for IBM resale via Bull. Rumor has it that ZDS will supply 150k machine per year to IBM. If this it true, it will double the number of portables shipped by ZDS. AST - Genelle Trader, Director of AST notebook products, resigned and accepted a job as Everex's VP of Marketing. AST - MS made significant progress with AST on DTIV. After our meeting with AST's Bob Becker, AST is expected to ship MS products only and abide by the Option 3 terms. HP - HP Vancouver's DeskJet 500C announced last Fill at $1095 SRP, is getting good reviews from the PC press. Nearly every review notes the product's fundamental flaw of being modal (either good monochrome or good color, but not both at the same time) while endorsing this product as the best low cost color option available today. DG - DG announced that they started fiscal year 1992 in the black, but just barely. DG earned $4M on sales of $294.8M in Q1 of fiscal year '92. This represents the fifth consecutive profitable quarter for DG after sustaining two and one-half years of losses. DG - DG announced that Robert Mars has assumed the position of VP of the PC Business Unit. Mars comes to DG from Tandon where he was VP of Sales. Mara fils the position vacated by David Ruberg, who left in August. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
5 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035054 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164636 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 6 of 16] Area SummariesFinished Goods DOS - Europe
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. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
6 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035055 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164637 CONFIDENTIAL [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) Key Account SummariesEuropean OEMs Actebis Computer GmbH ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
7 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035056 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164638 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 8 of 16] Amstrad (Richard
Barrie) Apricot (Dale
Borland) Brother ESCOM (Michael John) G2 (Hans Ranselaar) ICL/Nokia LTD (Lars
Ahlgren/Dale Borland) Microsys Olivetti (Maurizio
Bedinal) ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
8 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035057 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164639 CONFIDENTIAL [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). 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. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
9 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035058 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164640 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 10 of 16] Siemens Nixdorf
lnformationsystems AG (SNI) (Jaap VanArkel) Tulip (Hans
Ranselaar) ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
10 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035059 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164641 CONFIDENTIAL [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) Ungermann-Bess, Inc. (markbu) tomhen ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
11 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035060 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164642 CONFIDENTIAL [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 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 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. ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
12 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035061 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164643 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 13 of 16] Pattyl Johnmc 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 ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
13 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035062 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164644 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 14 of 16] Jeffd Darcyh Richab ** MICROSOFT SECRET **
14 [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7035063 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164645 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 Page 15 of 16] +--------------+ Microsoft Confidential Rev. 1.31.92 Christu [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS7038064 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164646 CONFIDENTIAL [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 >From stefanir Thu Aug 13 21:41:20 1992To: baerblb bengta bernardv carstens cwedell jeffl joachmk jochenh Cc: berndk gerdab reginaw stefanir wolfe Subject: URGENT-VOBIS Meeting with Lieven Aug 13, 1992/Impt. long email Date: Tue Sep 01 09:10:45 PDT 1992 Date: Thu Aug 13 21:38:28 PDT 1992 You are all probably going to demand that my email rights be taking [sic] away after the length of this email, but I felt it was very important to communicate all the issues that happened today..... Today I went to Vobis to discuss current business issues and to prepare for the agenda of items that Lieven wishes to discuss in next weeks meeting with Billg in London. Also attending the meeting with Lieven was Gerda Beining, Channel Marketing Specialist from the OBU. I invited Gerda along with me in order to approach Lieven on the Marketing Plan targeted towards working together with Vobis that we developed together (This plan was distributed to all of you on July 6th). We also wanted to present a proposal for working together on a Christmas Promotion and WinWord campaign in Germany. Overall, the meeeting went very well and included some very positive reactions on many issues, which I need to tell you about and get your feedback as quickly as possible. Lieven is looking forward to the meeting with Billg next week. He is excited to be able to discuss with him where MS's strategy is going and his own. Currently, Lieven is very positive towards MS and is very committed to the contract which was signed on July 2nd. The negative problem areas that exist in the relationship right now are the problems that have happened in the past and currently in the receipt of product tapes and documentation. Lieven plans on mentioning this issue because he sees it as an area that continues to stand in the way of us working together smoothly and for him to be able to bring to market the products. Otherwise he is very positive. I was also able to present to him in this meeting information on MS-DOS 6.0 and WFW. He was very excited to hear about our intentions for MS-DOS 6.0 (for example H/D compression and our anti-virus product.) It turns out that he was lately in contract discussions with Central Point to license from them their anti-virus product, but they couldn't agree on price. Needless to say, he was impressed and excited. I also discussed with Lieven our plans for WFW. Many of you are aware that our competitors in the market are aggressively targeting our OEMs, and they are not forgetting Vobis. LOTUS has been actively targeting Vobis in licensing and selling Lotus 1-2-3 and AMI-Pro for DM 88.00. BORLAND has also been approaching them lately as well with offeres and WordStar Germany has offered WordStar for a license of DM 2.00. NOVELL is also aggressively targeting Vobis with selling NetWare Lite and DR-DOS, especially since they are their top OEM in Europe. The Sum of All of this is as follows: Lieven has been giving thought to these offeres, but he prefers our product palette and feels that we are the market leaders. Price is ofcourse [sic] important to Lieven, but he would rather pay a slightly higher price to us knowing that he can offer the customer the leading market standard and high quality products. What he is willing to do, is commit entirely in a "Strategic Alliance"....He even said he would be willing to no longer offer DR-DOS, LOTUS, or BORLAND etc. In exchange for such [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: - After next weeks [sic] meeting with
Billg, he wants to issue together with us a press release stating the
"Strategic Alliance" to us and committment [sic] to Microsoft's
strategy. (This would send a
very direct statement to the public and the media that they have chosen
MS, and not DRI, NOVELL, Lotus or Borland). [HANDWRITTEN
UNDERLINE]
Many of you who attended the meeting at CEBIT92 where Lieven stated
"That he doesn't care about software and is a "Hardware Seller only"
and is not interested in marketing or selling software", are probably
wondering now why Lieven had a 180 degree turn in his viewpoint. This
is because quite simply, Lieven sees what is happening in the
Marketplace and that he needs to react if he wants to continue to grow
and be successful in the marketplace. He now understands and "Has seen
the Light" regarding the importance of software helping sell his
hardware. He knows that he cannot offer every operating system, every
spreadsheet or every word processing product.- They will invite us in early Octoboer to present and train their Store Managers and sales people from all of their stores in Europe on MS-DOS 6.0, Win 3.1, NT and WFW as well as applications. - They will also commit to atleast [sic] initially to a WFW agreement for 25K WFW licenses with the anticipation of much more since they have plans to break into the networking market and target small businesses. They would NOT offer NetWare Lite and instead push us and they are planning on having a stand at the PC-Windows Show in Frankfurt Oct 14-17th, where they would issue jointly with us a press release stating that they are committed to MS and our strategy with WFW in networking. (NOT NOVELL's NetWare Lite) - Lieven wants to do ACTIVE marketing with us.... He wants to actively on a Europe-wide base aadvertise and promote software in all 130 stores, including information displays, auto-demos, show window displays and stickers in windows etc.... He is willing to share costs with us and at NO CHARGE to MS bring us into his flyer "Denkzettel" that has a current distribution in Germany alone of over 6 Million, and around Christmas he estimates it to be at over 10 Million. He also wants to bring us into his new Advertising campaign for Highscreen computers which is appearing on Billboards and major business magazines (ie. Stern, Spiegel etc). - Lieven also wants to start actively selling retail packages of software, in particular WinWord and Excel to his "Power user" that needs more than the Works for Windows product. [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:- To participate in the Microsoft
Christmas Promotion in all of his 100 stores in Germany. He will only
do this if we give him exclusivity and not if we are proposing on doing
this with ESCOM or Shadt etc.
(I realize that these are ridiculously low....Lieven knows it, but its
[sic] what he proposed and he basically wants a counter proposal that
is attractive and competitive)- He would then like to work together with us very aggressively along with a Decoration Service for Window display where he will also pay for a share of the costs. - He will put atleast [sic] 1 or 2 pages of free advertising of this promotion in all of the flyers/Denkzettels that go to approx. 10 million recipients per month. - He wants to plan to do joint datasheets that would then be displayed in info racks throughout his stores along with coupons to mail back for more information. - He wants to do joint mailings on this to both the Vobis and MS database. - He wants to be able to bundle WinWord and Excel with his computers during the time of this promotion. He wants them on commission and sell them as follows: Machine bundled with Works for Windows: Price-DM2999.00 Same machine, but with option to choose WinWord or Excel: Price-DM3499.00 Same machine with both WinWord and Excel: Price-DM3949.00 - He also wants to sell all of our app
products such as Office, Winword, Excel, Powerpoint, WIndows, PC-Word,
Mouse, Publisher Money, Golf, and Flight Simulator. He wants to be able
to sell them as closely as possible to the prices that mail order
houses sell for and get them from us on commission and at a price where
he can earn a little on it.
(All of the above is waiting for a counter proposal from us....even if
we do not agree to all, he basically needs something to differentiate
and would only want the special prices during the promotion period.
Afterwords, [sic] he would go to standard prices and buy from
distributors. He sees our benefits as being able to achieve in this
short period time a high market penetration and get the update
business. He says at the prices that our competitors are offering that
we need to be aware that alot [sic] of OEMs may just sell it to get the
business in the store.)- After this promotion, he would want
to continue to work ith us on a regular basis doing in-store promotions
and havingnormal non-christmas information displays etc. as we had
proposed in our original marketing proposal for Vobis. They also would
like us to work together at the different sub-levels doing promotions
in each country.
[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 [This is a fax cover sheet. Printed letterhead addresses at top and bottom impossible to read, mostly hand-filled out form.] Microsoft·[fancy logo] Microsoft GmbH [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE /FAX] Nordrrlassung(?) Brrlm:(?) [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE /FAX] Nieferlasmng(?) Kad(?) Hambury;(?) [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE /FAX] Microsoft·(fancy logo) GmbH Telefax - Mitteilung An : Bill Gates Fax Nr.: [FAX] CC: Von: Stefanie_Reichel Datum : August 17, 1992 Gesamte Seitenzahl: 14 Pre-meeting briefing notes + VOBIS Account Profile Bill - Please find attached(?) the requested(?) information for the meeting with Vobis in London this week. I will be briefing you in more detail on Tuesday at the Hyatt Carlton Towers. Regards, Stefanie Reichel [LETTERHEAD FOOTER WITH ADDRESS / TELEPHONE ] [STAMPED] SR00015 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1164660 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1357(?) Reichel(?) 8/26/98 CER(?) [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1397 Page 2 of 4] Microsoft - VobisPre-Meeting Briefing Paper
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.
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 1397 Page 3 of 4] Microsoft - VobisPre-Meeting Briefing Paper
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 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1397 Page 4 of 4] Microsoft - VobisPre-Meeting Briefing PaperKey Issues to Address:
Hot Issues:
NOTE: PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1513 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 Page 1 of 10 VOBIS Microcomputer AGAccount Profile for Q1FY93 Microsoft·(fancy logo) & VOBIS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1339 Reichel(?) 8/26,6g(??) CER(?) Stefanie Reichel OEM Account Manager - Germany SR 00034 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT vergnes(?) 45 6.2207(? - half of line cut of due to end of fax or something) [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS98 0195373 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 Page 2 of 10] Executive SummaryVobis 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.
[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.
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 Page 4 of 10] Company Business ProfileVobis 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.
[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:
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.
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 Page 6 of 10] Vobis at a Glance*Name and Address; Vobis Microcomputer AG Postfach 1778 Rotter Bruch 32-34 D-5100 Aachen Germany Business: Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of IBM Compatible personal computer systems.
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] SR 00039 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS98 0195378 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 Page 7 of 10] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] SR 00040 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS98 0195379 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Product LineVobis 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:
Other Products
[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* The above is based on actuals that we have through Q4FY92.All other is based on our Forecasts. [The histogram shows sales of Intel 8086, Intel 286, Intel 386, Intel 486 for each of 11 quarters from Q2FY91 through Q4FY93. It is difficult to read the histogram due to the poor quality of the image, but total shipments for each quarter range from 60,000 through 120,000, more or less increasing from quarter to quarter.] [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[IMAGE: Histogram of Royalty Revenue of Microsoft Products, over six quarters from Q2FY1991 to Q3FY1992.]Revenue for FY91 - $2,506,980.00 Revenue for FY92 - $7.449.632.00 [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
Summary of Terms:
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3247 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 3247 Page 1 of 1] [handwritten] re you _happy?_Theo Lieven, President and CEO
Vobis Microcomputer AG MICROSOFT VISIT ITINERARY In addition to the attached agenda for the OEM Briefing Conference, the following meetings have been scheduled and arranged for your visit to Seattle: Tuesday, September 22 [handwritten] does he meet BillG? - Debbyjo said for ½ an hour either before or after his speech - I'm waiting for confirmation - apparantely[sic] he is flying in for the speech + then flying out... 7:00 p.m. Arrive Seattle (from Atlanta on Delta Airlines) Seattle Limousine Service (Steve Morgan [TELEPHONE]) will pick up and deliver you to the Seattle Sheraton Hotel. Accommodations Seattle Sheraton Hotel [TELEPHONE / FAX] [handwritten] Ask Debbyjo to make arrangements + re: Billg mtg. Wednesday, September 23 Accommodations Seattle Sheraton Hotel Thursday, September 24 7:00 a.m. Breakfast Meeting Microsoft Attendees: Steve Ballmer - Sr. VP of Sales & Marketing Bengt Akerlind - Director of European OEM Sales Stefanie Reichel - OEM Account Manager Location: Banner's Resaurant (Sheraton Hotel) 6:30 p.m. Seattle Limousine (Steve Morgan [TELEPHONE]) will pick up and deliver the following individuals to the Hunt Club ([TELEPHONE]) at 900 Madison, Seattle: Theo Lieven Juergen Huels Joachim Kempin Stefanie Reichel Bengt Akerlind 7:00 p.m. Dinner Meeting at The Hunt Club (Sorrento Hotel) Seattle Limousine will transport the entire group back to the Seattle Sheraton after dinner. [STAMPED] SR 00008 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT [illegible] [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1164685 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3475 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [STAMPED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3475 BUT OCCURS AMONG RESPONDENT'S FILES ON THE COURT WEB SITE.][Plaintiff's Exhibit 3475 Page 1 of 3] [STAMPED] MS 5055904 CONFIDENTIALSecond feature: I have a Syquest drive. So far I haven't been able to install DR6. It seems that DRDOS is trying to create a directory in the Syquest Drive. The Syquest drive returns "Not ready error reading drive D" ARF. I'll try removing the Syquest drive! ######################################################## 474 >From ericst Thu Sep 19 11:36:50 1991 To: dosbug Cc: bobcook dos5beta Subejct: Re: didn't work Date: Thu, 19 Sep [19]91 11:37:31 PDT You must run from the dos prompt. If you try running it in a Windows dos VM, you will get a message saying you can't run under windows. If you try running directly from windows, screen just flashes. Exit windows and run. Bugmaster: Please enter the following bug: Sev 3 - Fix for 5.0a Getting Started section on problems running setup needs to tell users to not run from windows. Eric. >From bobcook Thu Sep 19 09:32:44
1991
######################################################## 475To: dos5beta Subject: didn't work Date: Thu Sep 19 09:30:36 PDT 1991 screen flashes and it exits with no messages. tried reading trouble.txt but its too large for vi or notepad, tried setup /i and same thing. running under windows 3.0 on northgate 425i. >From johnen Thu Sep 19 11:46:16 1991 To: bradsi jimla Subject: FW: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, may files turned into crosslinked mess Date: Thu Sep 19 11:36:08 PDT 1991 >From lawren Thu Sep 19 11:34:15:1991 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 3475 Page 2 of 3] [STAMPED] MS 5055905 CONFIDENTIALTo: winbug Cc: bambi scottq lawren Subject: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Windows Bug Report Title: Bambi&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Opened By: lawren Sev: 1 WinVer: 3.10 47 Product: Drivers Area: Bambi Origin: Internal Sugg.Assign: scottq DOSVer: 6.00 Mode: high Name: Phone: Problem Statement: Had run fine other times. Did a "DIR" and I got garbage characters. Chkdsk found well over 100 files with crosslinked files, invalid clusters, and invalid & incorrect lengths. Machine Configuration: Cumulus 386 2M VGA Config.Sys: Autoexec.Bat: Form #: SYS003 Version#: 2.00 Revision Date: 08/22/[19]91 ####################################################### 476 From karlst Thu Sep 19 11:55:06 1991 To: steveti Cc: bradsi philba Subject: jeanp/vacation Date: Thu Sep 19 11:34:54 1991 I believe we've settled the issue with jeanp regarding his vacation. Don't call him. Kudos to bradsi for making this happen. ####################################################### 477 From philba Thu Sep 19 11:58:17 1991 To: lawren Cc: bambi bradsi lawren scottq Subject: Re: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Date: Thu, 19 Sep 91 11:34:11 PDT [Plaintiff's Exhibit 3475 Page 3 of 3] [STAMPED] MS 5055906 CONFIDENTIALtee hee hee... thats what you get for running an incompatible OS sorry I couldn't resist. Scott, lets figure this out asap -- could be a problem thats lurking for real DOS >From lawren Thu Sep 19 11:34:15:1991
To: winbug Cc: bambi scottq lawren Subject: Bambi:&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Windows Bug Report Title: Bambi&DR DOS 6.0, many files turned into crosslinked mess Opened By: lawren Sev: 1 WinVer: 3.10 47 Product: Drivers Area: Bambi Origin: Internal Sugg.Assign: scottq DOSVer: 6.00 Mode: high Name: Phone: Problem Statement: Had run fine other times. Did a "DIR" and I got garbage characters. Chkdsk found well over 100 files with crosslinked files, invalid clusters, and invalid & incorrect lengths. Machine Configuration: Cumulus 386 2M VGA Config.Sys: Autoexec.Bat: Form #: SYS003 Version#: 2.00 Revision Date: 08/22/[19]91 ####################################################### 478 From greglo Thu Sep 19 12:10:11 1991 To: bradsi Subject: Re: bambi Date: Thu, 19 Sep 91 12:05:40 PDT The new WzMail version (which uses the WinMail document handling routines rather than the ancient DH library) also gives you a huge perf boost. If you use WzMail you want it. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4178 Gordon v.Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 4178 Page 1 of 1] Windows and DOS
Development
August Status Report Phil Barrett Windows 286 & 386 Rel 2.1D Release 2.1D development work was completed in August. The product was release[sic] to Manufacturing Sept 6 A 2 1D release of the 386/XT version of Win386 was not released since no bug fixes in 2.1D affected it. Windows Rel 3.0 Windows 3.0 moved into high gear in August. The Windows 3.0 product plan was completed and presented to SteveB and BillG for review. The basic plan was well recieved[sic] with one major addition(?) -- Protected-Mode Windows. Thanks to some midnight efforts by DavidW and BobGu?s a demonstration system was available to prove the feasibility(?) of pW. This was very well recieved[sic]. More planning has been done and it appears that an end of July 1989 ship date is feasible. A fair amount of progress was made in August. Drop shadows on menus and proportions system font are working The keyboard friver reorganization was completed -- this allows us more flexibility for supporting international keyboards. Windows 386 scheduler is working giving us the ability to boost the priority of the VM using the Keyboard providing for a much smoother response. Interface/Tools The Windows 2.1 SDK beta release was made in August. This was mostly to gain feedback on the suitibility of CVW for general use. The feedback was quite positive so the product was released to manufacturing and is now shipping to customers. Planning for the 3.0 SDK began in August with the specification of the work areas that will be focused on. External suppliers of tools are also being examined(?). Whitewater Group and Eikon Systems are two. DOS August saw the IBM release of DOS 4.0. August also saw the discovery by the press of DOS 4.0 bugs. Probably the biggest complaint is poor EMS support. This and several other problems have been corrected for the PC-DOS release. In addition the maintenance release will have a reduction of the number of physical pages consumed by expanded memory usage. A Beta OEM release was made in August and the Packaged product release is planned for Sept. Progress on EMM386 was made in August with substantial progress made on both functionality and size. Plans are in place for a second round of improvements (most size) for the maintenance release. August was a big month for DOS planning. Evaluation of the IBM Lifeboat(?) (4.1) specification occured in August (and is ongoing) DOS plans were presented to BillG and we recieved[sic] the go-ahead to investigate Protected-Mode DOS. Initial planning started on a Retail Upgrade Package of DOS. Recruiting & Personel [sic] Four offers(?) were accepted in August making it(?) a top month for recruiting. We recieved[sic] accepts from Clark Cyr (Tools). Guther(?) Ziaber(?) (GDI/Drivers). Laitha(?) (Printer Drivers) and Sriram(?) Rajagopaian(?) (DOS). Thanks to Beth Davies and Susan(?) Vositer(?) for a top-notch job. The bad news. we are still 7 under our FYSS(FYBS?) plan. We have also obtained a Waterloo Coop student and there is a possibility of a second. This will help out quite a bit. Current recruiting(?) status: Offers Out: Mike Morgan. Paul Klemond Offers Rejected: Eric Meyer (salary) Headcount Plan: Group Current FY89 Windows 386 5 5 HPC 1 4 DOS 5 8(?) CD-ROM 2 2 Group 1 1 Total 28 35 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] ATTORNEYS ONLY [STAMPED] 10152375 [STAMPED] EXH 49 DATE _5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1148405 CONFIDENTIAL DEFENDENT'S EXHIBIT 417 - Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Defendant's Exhibit 417 Page 1 of 5 [STAMPED] EXHIBIT 67 Barrett 5/31/[20]02[The exhibit is a photocopy of the cover of a book. The cover art shows a man in a business suit (Bill Gates) posed like Rodin's "The Thinker," looking up at a lightbulb with the Internet Explorer logo on it. The lightbulb is flanked with images of the Earth as a globe.] HOW THE WEB WAS WON HOW BILL GATES AND HIS INTERNET IDEALISTS TRANSFORMED THE MICROSOFT EMPIRE With a new chapter on the impact of the Justice Department trial verdict. PAUL ANDREWS COAUTHOR OF THE NATIONAL BESTSELLER GATES Defendant's Exhibit 417 Page 2 of 5 [Pages 140 and 141 of How the Web Was Won]nism for Gates to be exposed to the Internet side of the online service argument. Silverberg sensed that because of Gates's close relationship with Siegelman and Myhrvold, the chairman had been hearing a one-note song. Nevertheless, for Silverberg, Shumway was hardly an earthshaking occasion. He listened to the debate of online versus the Internet with interest. It was an intriguing psychological dynamic for Microsoft, but it had little impact on his thinking. His mind was made up. Shumway merely reaffirmed the need for him to keep moving down the trail he had already been blazing. As far as he was concerned, the debate could continue without him. The Windows effort could not affort to sit on its hand, waiting for an elusive consensus to emerge. By then it would be way, way too late. So Silverberg started the Chicago team down an Internet path that was in many ways parallel to the goals of Siegelman's online effort. Chicago was firmly in the camp of supporting open Internet protocols for things like e-mail, security, and dialing up from home. Marvel was building its service from the ground floor up, on its own e-mail and publishing and dial-up protocols, with the hedge that if users wanted Internet access, they would be able to get there from Microsoft's online service. The Siamese-twin approach had enormous inefficiencies in development and personnel overlap. It was the kind of budget drain most executives and big companies would never countenance. Choose one or the other, they would direct their managers. But Gates saw benefits to multitasking the online strategy. It gave him the chance again to play two hands at once, as Microsoft had with parallel OS/2 and Windows development. Competition was important, even if it was internal. And Gates was loath to discourage entrepreneurialism within his ranks. Creative tension was needed in an organization for it to thrive and move forward. Gates was not going to stand in the way of a process that would save Microsoft from becoming a Wang or an Apple or a Lotus or an IBM. Gates also was caught in the bind of the Silverberg-Siegelman personaility conflict. It too was nothing new in Microsoft's competitive, ego-driven culture: "It's just another thing you have to manage," Gates said later. In this case, he saw benefits to a macro, not micro, managed approach. He had given Siegelman the green light well before the Net was a factor. And at the Shumway retreat he had made it obvious that Silverberg was to intergrate the Internet into Windows. Gates was like the basketball coach having two point guards play one-on-one to see who would get the starting assignment. After the Shumway retreat, Silverberg met with Phil Barnett, a lead systems manager who had just joined the Windows 95 development effort. Silverberg asked him to look at how Internet capabilities could be woven into Chicago. Included on the list were Allard's initiatives regarding TCP/IP, ftp, telnet, WAIS, auto dialer, and other Net acces features. Silverberg added another item to the laundry: browsing capability. Should we include a browser with Chicago? he asked Barrett. What would be the browser's role vis- à-vis Chicago connectivity with the Web? Should we build it ourselves, from the ground floor up? What would that take, in terms of resources and time? Would it be better to license or buy existing technology and improve on it? Silverberg did not want to rush headlong into a drain on Microsoft resources. There were lots of browsers out there, after all, and little discernable demand. There was still plenty of time, it seemed, for Microsoft to make its play in the browser sweepstakes. Barrett hired two part-time program managers and by midsummer had a college intern on hand to help out with product management. But his primary focus was on Chicago, not the Internet. "Everyone was focused on getting Chicago out," he recalled. "Bill may have said the Internet is very, very important, but organizationally, I don't think that took right away at all." Barrett took on the assignment, but for him the Internet was not a huge action item. As for the browser, Barrett had heard nothing about integrating it into Windows at the Shumway retreat, and he felt little urgency to pursue the issue. For Silverberg, however, browsing in Windows was a top priority. The Windows three-year plan he presented after Shumway specifically outlined "integrated Net browsing in [Windows] Explorer." [Square brackets in original] He was not sure what form it would take, but browsing needed to be there. On board as well was John Ludwig. "It was clear from Shumway that we needed to Internet-enable our operating system much, much, much more, and that a browser was the most important part of this," Ludwig later recalled, even if all the t's were not crossed or the i's dotted. Six weeks after the retreat, Silverberg attended Windows World at Spring Comdex in Atlanta, with an eye toward finding out what Windows vendors were doing with the Internet. Sinofsky was there with a similar goal in mind. The two hooked up and strolled the floor together. In a tiny booth tucked away on a side aisle they found gold -- or at least some glitter. BookLink Technologies, Inc., a small software developer based in Wilmington, Massachusetts, was showing an early iteration of Internetworks, browsing technology that integrated tightly with Windows. Silverberg and Sinofsky had learned of BookLink from Allard, who knew one of the company's principles, Bill Hawkins, though various Internet conferences. Hawkins, who Defendant's Exhibit 417 Page 3 of 5 [How the web was won, pages 162 and 163]For Silverberg, long the Marvel skeptic, the problem was that the browser, and by extension the Internet, was too low a priority for Marvel. Siegelman had simply blown a huge opportunity, and now Microsoft was back to square one. Silverberg was determined to have browser technology in Chicago. It looked like his team would have to develop or obtain it themselves. John Ludwig, the networking veteran who was "blue-skying" future opportunities for Windows for Silverberg, agreed: We had better reassess where we are in the browser game, he put it to Silverberg. We need to decide whether we are serious about this stuff, in which case we had better start moving faster and more decisively. Or we need to cut bait. It was a short conversation. As far as the Internet goes, Silverberg said, we're as hardcore as Microsoft has ever been about anything. It was more than a year before Bill Gates, on December 7, 1995, would say the same thing to the world at large. Tall, gentle-mannered, and cerebral, Ludwig brough keen analytical skills and a calm rationality to the browser project. Ludwig monitoring a project was like a submarine tracking a target. He preferred working below the surface, unnoticed, while tirelessly and unflaggingly plotting political strategy, honing in on challenges and charting progress. Silverberg and Ludwig made a great alliance. Both hated ego-boosting or self-aggrandizing schemes. Both practiced a subtle form of leadership where they enabled those around them either to make the right choice or to learn from mistakes -- miscues neither of them might have committed, but which were necessary as lessons learned. Both drew more satisfaction from watching those around them succeed together than from calling attention to their own contributions. From mid-1994 on Ludwig was a critical part of each significant strategic decision Microsoft made on the browser front. Yet, innumerable articles and analyses of the browser competition almost never identified him. There was an almost audible shifting of gears going on for the Redmond gang. Through early fall of 1994, browser development had more or less meandered along as part of the Chicago effort, but not a huge part. It was not so much that the browser was considered unessential or insignificant. The Shumway retreat, and Gates's mobilization e-mail immediately following, made it clear that integrating browsing capability into the operating system was a vital goal for the company's Internet effort. But it seemed unrealistic to expect that a browser could be cobbled together in time for Chicago's release, at the time still scheduled for the upcoming fall of 1994. Integrating an entirely new dimension would mean lots more coding, debugging, testing, coding, debugging, testing -- the seemingly endless programming cycle. If you altered one line of code in a program as complex as Windows, Silverberg was wont to point out, you usually stood the chance of introducing a bug or glitch, and so on down the line. Software development at its heart was a mind-drubbing, Sisyphan chore of debugs and fixes. Microsoft's ability to persist to the bitter end in ferreting out as many bugs as possible and in addressing user needs helped explain its successes where others had run out of ideas, steam, or initiative. The previous spring, Barrett had been assigned to look into a browser, but with attention focused on more pressing issues in the Chicago upgrade, he had not put it on the front burner. Over the next few months he talked to a few people, looked over the field -- then consisting of a wild assortment of browsers that did one or two things well but overall were slow, underfeatured, and immature -- and drew up some preliminary specifications. But no team got assembled, no product description or business plan got drawn up, and no code got written. Neither did any alarm get sounded. The BookLink discussions were progressing along a normal path, after all. With most browsers available for free, there was no real commercial pressure on Microsoft. Once the Internetworks code became available, the thinking was the browser effort would be able to ramp up production quickly. When the BookLink deal fell through, everything changed. As luck would have it, and Microsoft often did have luck, a coding maniac by the name of Ben Slivka had other ideas. Bearing a striking resemblance to Anthony Edwareds -- Dr. Mark Greene on the TV series ER -- Slivka combined a studious demeanor with alacritous energy, stamina, and will. Starting the previous summer, Slivka had agitated Ludwig's next-generation Windows team to o something like Mosaic for Windows. Although it was not true that, in order to be part of Microsoft's Internet effort, your last name had to begin with "S" and feature some combination of "v," "i," "n," or "l," Slivka was a perfect fit for the company's aborning browser development. A veteran of the OS/2, DOS 5 and DOS 6 projects, Slivka had a ton of code under his belt and was known as a just-ship-it kind of guy. He liked impossible challenges, particularly if he could drag his friends into them as well. Ludwig, looking for a programmer to start prototyping browser technology for Windows, asked Slivka onto the team. At that point, the Internet was just one aspect of the blueprint for Memphis, as the leapfrog upgrade of Defendant's Exhibit 417 Page 4 of 5 [Page headings How the Web Was Won] [Page Number] 164 [Page Number] 165 Windows -- the one following Chicago -- was code-named. The whole idea of projecting an upgrade ahead was a new twist for the Windows team. It harkened back to Silverberg's conviction that software development had to happen in incremental iterations rather than one shot only. Besides the Internet, on the Memphis team's plate were things like wireless comminications, game machines, PCs in the home, the eventual merging of Chicago with Windows NT. Permeating the effort philosophically was the Gates vision of Information At Your Fingertips, approaching its fourth anniversary. How would the Windows of three or four years hence continue the IAYF vision? Ludwig thought about the question every day. After joining Ludwig's team in July, Slivka initially was interested in the notion of indexing all the content on the Internet. It seemed a natural extension of the IAYF metaphor. In order for the unthinkable amount of data on a vast interconnected network to be useful, it would have to be indexed in a way that gave meaningful access to users. Ironically, by that point, the summer of 1994, Slivka had not even gotten a home connection on the Net. He knew next to nothing about the Web. He hadn't seen the Allard or Sinofsky memos. He hadn't attended the Shumway retreat. Of all the eventual architects of Microsoft's Internet presence, Slivka was undoubtedly the last to the starting line. But in terms of producing actual code, Slivka was first out of the blocks. Ludwig loved this about Slivka. Ben is not a patient fellow, Ludwig would say. When he identified something that needed to be worked on, Slivka was like a woodpecker, tapping, tapping, tapping till he got to the meat of the matter. "He'll come at you every day with ten things you ought to be doing," Ludwig put it. "Some percent you already are doing, he just didn't know about it. Some percentage are just shooting from the hip, he hasn't really thought through. But some percentage are dead on and you should listen to him. I let him have his say, and he tells me how to do my job, and then I throw away the nine things I don't want to hear about. The one thing he says that's accurate, I say, That's a good idea, I'll try to do better on that one." First Slivka tracked down a Microsoft technician and browbeat him into providing an Internet tap to Slivka's office. As of the summer of 1994, getting an Internet line at Microsoft still was not a trivial procedure, where security concerns about the Net still kept it from being widely accessable. Once he got on the Net and downloaded Mosaic, Slivka spent twelve hours straight surfing. He would get on a home page, then click to a link, then go to another URL, then find a dozen more links. It was revelation after revelation. This was as close as Slivka had seen to an actual manifestation of IAYF in all its original intent. After his tour of the Web, Slivka did not just feel the world had changed, he set about making sure it had -- at least, his world. He started sending around e-mail, asking questions, communicating with programming teams. He asked Silverberg and Ludwig where the company was on the browser. Shouldn't we be developing something for Chicago? From the standpoint of programming, the browser did not seem to be a monumental challenge. Even if we can't get it in time for the Chicago release, Slivka told the Windows team, we ought to have it ready within a few months afterward. Directed to consult with Barrett, Slivka became even more convinced that Microsoft needed to move more quickly. WWhat he found was pretty bare bones. Barrett had "already decided this was nuts. This is going nowhere, and I don't particularly want to be in an enormous company." To his mind, Microsoft did not get the Net and was not likely to soon. It was time to move on. By August "I'd already made a decision to leave," Barrett recalled. Knowing he was a short-timer, Barrett ignored the Internet project. Oblivious to Barrett's disenchantment, Slivka spent little time puzzling over the situation. Microsoft would get a browser, he decided, if he had to write every last line of it himself. Slivka's first step was to take a comprehensive look at Mosaic, break it down feature by feature, figure out how the stuff worked, and where Microsoft had the opportunity to improve. What was the competition in the browser space? Who were the players? What were the feature sets? What problems do users encounter with surfing? One of Slivka's first assumptions was that browsing -- at the time still being referred to as "viewing" -- would supersede gopher and ftp. This despite the fact that at the time, gopher and ftp were by far more popular ways of navigating the Net than any of the browser technologies. Our focus should be on the Web, Slivka told Ludwig and Silverberg. That's where our resources should go. Like Ludwig himself and Silverberg, Slivka was a systems guy, which meant he thought in terms of platforms. How could Microsoft use a new technology to benefit Windows users? How could the company get thousands of software developers to use Microsoft technology? That was the key question to platform guys. At the time, the Memphis team was well aware of parallel efforts to incorporate browsing into other Microsoft products. Pathe had the Internet Assistant project going for Word. Evslin headed the effort to make browsing a part of Microsoft's Exchange e-mail project. No, no, no, Defendant's Exhibit 417 Page 5 of 5 [Pages 166 and 167 of How the Web Was Won]the systems guys were saying. Browsing -- viewing, exploring, whatever -- should be a part of Windows. Not that Pathe or Evslin were misguided in wanting to make browsing a key part of their end users' experience. But writing a browser for Word, and another one for Exchange, and yet another one for Windows would waste resources and create a lot of redundant code. On August 22, in an e-mail time-stamped 5:10 P.M., Slivka notified the Memphis planning team that he had gotten started on the user interface design for what he termed Microsoft's "WWW Explorer" -- there was that word again. Slivka had cataloged the entire Mosaic user interface -- at least as far as http was concerned; ftp and gopher mechanics were still awaiting assessment. To a crack systems programmer like Slivka, Mosiac was a collection of pieces, as its name implied. There was an html piece, a user interface component, a caching element -- caching referring to the process where things like Web pages, or URLs, were stored on the local machine for ready reference by the browser user or the browser itself. Caching made it much easier and faster for the browser to call up previously displayed URLs. Slivka though it was done pretty poorly on Mosaic, and it became one of the WWW Explorer team's top priorities and early triumphs. From his initial analysis, Slivka concluded that the process of Web browsing was pretty similar to network browsing and hard-disk browsing. It was all exploring, he thought at the time. Slivka started a list of what changes and improvements the Windows team could make to Mosaic, but a key design question also needed to be addressed: "At this point, I'm not sure if I want to be TOTALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE CHICAGO EXPLORER, or if we want a separate window for the html viewer." The reference provided another benchmark in Microsoft's plan to blend Windows with the Web. Eventually, Slivka would have it both ways. The html viewer -- browser -- would start off as its own window but gradually, with the release of Internet Explorer 4.0 in September 1997 and Windows 98 the following June, meld with the Windows Explorer. Slivka's persistent questioning of the browser effort got back to Silverberg. He looked into the situation, found it wanting, and told Barrett he was not happy with the progress he was making. Silverberg was a patient manager as long as progress was evisent. It looked to him as if Barrett did not understand what the browser did and what Microsoft needed from the technology. Barrett was in no frame of mind for second-guessing. By the first week of October, he told his supervisors, "I'm quitting and I've got four weeks of vacation. See you later." Within days Ludwig was paying Slivka a visit. How would you like to be in charge of the browser effort? Ludwig asked. It was an entirely rhetorical question. Slivka did not even bother to ask what happened to Barrett. As it turned out, Barrett took about a month off and then joined Rob Glaser's Internet startup, Progressive Networks, as vice president of software development. It was fitting that Slivka found himself on the cusp of Microsoft's biggest paradigm shift since DOS-to-Windows. Everything in his upbringing and career path had pointed toward a day when he would tackle something worthy of his talents. Since childhood, Slivka had been self-driven towards programming achievement. One of twin boys born in 1960 in Seattle to a public librarian mother and Seattle Symphony percussionist father, Slivka grew up playing with a variety of electronics. His first-generation Russian father, Meyer, put together a Theremin, a rare electronic musical horn whose "wooo wooo" sound changed tone when one's hands passed over its surface. Meyer also built an oscilloscope and TV set from Heathkit and, in the mid-1970s, put together his own electronic music synthesizer. Assisting him, young Ben got handy with a soldering iron. It was his mother, Enid, however, who introduced Slivka to programming. In the early 1970s she took a course on programming in BASIC, and Slivka got intrigued by what you could do with computer code. He was still a little on the young side to do much on his own, but a seed had been planted. When Hewlett-Packard came out with its programmable pocket calculators, Slivka would go downtown after school, a half-hour bus trip, and program display models for an hour or two at Seattle's leading department store, Frederick & Nelson. The salespeople, amused at what a kid could do and figuring it might attract buyers, were tolerant. Slivka learned eraly on the value of hard work and independent thinking. His working mother had the two boys helping out almost from the time their younger sister was born. "The poor things never knew what is was like to sit still and have someone wait on them," Enid Slivka recounted. As a result they learned to speak their minds when they wanted something, a trait heartily encouraged by their mother. Enid Slivka had read a book about the Compton family, which produced two university presidents and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Arthur Holly Compton. "The way their [Compton] children were encouraged to investigate things for themselves made quite an impression on me," she said. Ben eventually drew the admiration, not to say awe, of Microsoft coworkers for being able to repeatedly challenge a boss named Bill Gates, and take the return heat without flinching. [Groklaw transcriber's note: square bracketed [Compton] is original.] Slivka eventually outgrew the calculators and discovered bigger terrain. Near Green Lake in north Seattle, a treasure trove called the Retail Com- [END OF MARCH 19, 2004 Gordon v. Microsoft Transcript.] Gordon v. Microsoft Exhibits Published March 24, 2004 21 Exhibits 82 pp. (Microsoft, Go Corporation, Compaq Corporation: Pen Computing, PenPoint OS, July 1988 to January 1993.) Nearing completion. Last Revised 4/29/2004 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 27 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] NONDISCLOSURE STATEMENT GO Corporation has disclosed or may disclose business or technical information ("GO Information") to you in connection with a proposed business relationship. In consideration of any disclosure and any negotiations concerning the proposed business relationship you agree as follows: 1. You will hold in confidence and not use or disclose any GO Information except information you can document (a) is in the public domain. (b) was known to you prior to diclosure by GO or (c) was properly disclosed to you by another person without restriction. 2. If you decide not to proceed with the proposed business relationship or if asked by GO, you will promptly return all GO Information and all copies. 3. You will promptly notify GO of any unauthorized release of GO information. 4. You understand that this statement does not obligate GO to disclose any information or negotiate or enter any agreement or relationship. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: Name: (Print) William H. Gates By: (Signature) William H. Gates Date: 7/8/[19]88 GO CORPORATION By [signature illegible] [STAMPED] KAPLAN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 3 4/18/[20]02 [STAMPED] KAP01-16 [FAX TIMESTAMP FOOTER] JUL 05 '88 15:51 GO CORPORATION P. 2/2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 58 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 58 p. 1 of 3] GO Corporation [GO logo][ADDRESS / TELEPHONE / FAX] February 10, 1989 Mr. Jeff Raikes Microsoft Corporation [ADDRESS] Dear Jeff: This letter documents a joint project between Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, WA and GO Corporation of Foster City, CA. Assumptions: * Microsoft is interested in exploring
potential business opportunities relating to the GO notebook computer.
Potential projects include native applications, adaptations of
desktop-based Microsoft products, and insuring smooth exchange of data
between notebook and desktop applications.
* GO is seeking strategic partners to develop applications for GO's notebook computer. Goals: * Establish a working relationship in
which technical, marketing and strategic information may be shared
between GO and Microsoft for mutual benefit.
* Support Microsoft's explorations of potential opportunities relating to the GO notebook computer. * Support GO's corporate and product development efforts to establish its notebook computer. Project Definition: Microsoft will assign a minimum of one half-time person to work with GO to identify projects of potential interest to Microsoft. GO will provide temporary office space, access to proprietary design documentation and related information, and technical cooperation to the assigned Microsoft project representative(s). KAP0155 [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4 4/18/[20]02 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 58 p. 2 of 3] GO Corporation GO will attempt to incorporate design elements and system services into the notebook computer that complement and support Microsoft's efforts. The project will result in a jointly authored report describing the results of the investigation, This report will be jointly owned, and will be held in confidence by both organizations. Term: The project will extend for a period of 3 months beginning February, l5 1989, and may be extended by mutual agreement. Confidentiality: In the course of this project, each party may at their sole discretion provide the other party with access to proprietary, trade secret and confidential information ('Information') includinq, but not limited to, design documents, program code, draft documentation, and market research, as required to further the project. Each party agrees to treat the other's Information with the same care with which they treat their own. To protect each party's Information each party agrees: 1. To use Information only for the purpose of furthering this joint project.2. To hold in confidence and not use or disclose the other's Information except to the extent they can document that it (a) is in the public domain, (b) was known to them prior to disclosure (c) was properly disclosed to them by another person without restriction. 3. To label written Infomation as confidential, and to follov up oral disclosures of Infomation with a written confirmation of the disclosure describing the Information within 30 days followinq oral disclosure. 4. That no copies of Information are to be made without the express written consent of the other party. [STAMPED] KAP0156 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 58 p. 3 of 3] GO Corporation[ADDRESS] 5. To return all tangible forms or Information received from the other upon written request. 6. To promptly notify the other party or any unauthorized release of the others Information. The participation of Microsoft and GO staff in joint design and implementation efforts will not create an interest or ownership on behalf of either party in the other's proprietary, confidential, or trade secret information.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 101 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] To: rc From: jkaplan Date: May 10, 1989 6:16 PM My thinking is that while he is here, we should cooperate fully with him. Giving him doc to read is fine, if we can usefully give him a PC with some tools to try out, that's fine to [sic]. In fact, not doing this may seem a bit odd, given that Gary (for example) has been able to develop a sample aps on his machine. We should set him up in a booth at the other end of the world from Bob Vallone. I think we should request that he not remove (or copy) documents from the offices from the time being, and explain that this is not a personal criticism but reflects the early state and relative lack of definition of our relationship with MSFT at this time. Do you think this will be taken in the right spirit? If not, we should consider a specific agreement about what will be done with our docs (like a log of who sees them that we get a copy of, that they by kept under lock and key, and that they not be duplicated? J [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 12 4/18/[20]02 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 115 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 115 p1 of 3] [handwritten] File: Notebook Computers[STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 15 4/18/[20]02 [STAMPED] X 584359 CONFIDENTIAL File : c:wzmailmailbox.fld Messages: . ####################################################### 50 >From dinash Thu Jun 8 15:19:01 1989 To: cindych Subject: pls print Date: Thu Jun 08 13:40:44 1989 >From peteh Thu Jun 8 11:47:53 1989 To: dinash Subject: pls print Date: Thu Jun 08 11:44:35 1989 >From ralfha Wed Jun 7 14:20:48 1989 To: peteh Subject: Lloyd's GO Trip Reports Date: Wed Jun 07 14:19:20 1989 >From lloydfr Thu May 4 18:39:08 1989 To: gregs jeffh ralfhe Subject: Trip to GO Corporation Date: Thu May 4 18:36:37 1989 Trip Report - GO Corporation, 5/4/[19]89 (150 lines long) Yesterday, Kathleen Schoenfelder (soon to be permanent MS employee, now Stanford MBA) and I met with Robert Carr, Jerry Kaplan, and Suye Toenfskoetter (GO director of marketing). Carr was with us the whole day; Kaplan and Sue dropped in occasionally. WHAT GO IS DOING They see themselves primarily as systems software developers for a new class of comptuers. Out of the 35 people that work there, approx 25 actually write code (15-17 on systems kind of stuff, 5-6 on apps), and only a few work on the hardware. They subcontract the hardware out to a bunch of companies, and in the future might have closer ties to the Japanese. They haven't figured out if they are going to license their systems software to other computer manufacturers. Hardware is not their competitive advantage, it's the software. They hope to ship everything by summer of '90. Hardware It's a 12 mhz CMOS 286 with 2-8 meg static ram, LCD screen, EGA, 640x400 80 DPI, 2 planes. Special pen that interacts with a magnetic field above screen. They can tell how far the pen is from the screen, it's [sic] angle to the screen, and rotation. A second processor deals with the pen interaction. Either a standard modem or fax modem card can be put in the unit (hopefully they'll be able to oput them both on one card). They have a "home base unit " which includes a battery recharger, 3mb floppy, SCSI, parallel, and RS-232 ports, LocalTalk/TOPS connection, keyboard connection. Optional home base stuff is network card to get to Novell or MS-Net, and a hard drive. Active Matrix screen will be option sometime. Standard with 2 meg and base unit will cost around $4000. The only demo we saw was a year old - this July they should have prototypes. It'll weigh 4 1/2 lbs and be about and [sic] inch thick, still kind of bulky. Software They're doing their own GUI, object-oriented, protect mode operating system. They seem to have a lot of bright people who have gotten fairly far along with this. Their design appears pretty similar to our object strategy. They have a kernel, class manager, file system, etc, and on top of this they have an application framework. You build apps by subclassing off of the system objects and adding your own stuff on top of that. Carr talked a lot about embedded objects and other merits of GO OS. I agreed that this is all very nice, in fact we're doing the same thing, but just imagine if this was completely compatible with the x million desktop computers in existence. All of this workgroup, networking, and communication would be so much easier. His response was he needed it soon, and specifically to meet the constaints of notebook type computers. Carr wouldn't let me bring home the API documents or their SDK, and I didn't get a chance to actually see the stuff working. But he wants me to spend a few days down there looking it over and talking wit some of their developers. I think this would be very worthwhile for me to do. The apps they are doing initially are: notebook manager, notetaker/simple wordprocessor, fax/markup up, e-mail, forms manager, rolodex, calendar/To Do. They are likely to add small apps and change their emphasis as they find key customers who talk about buying several thousand machines. A lot o fthe objects they are using in those apps will be part of the system so that other ISV's will be able to leverage off their work. They say their handwriting stuff is really good and flexible depending on what each app wants. In a workdprocessor, the apps tells the HW sftwr [sic] to try and map the input to words in its dictionary. A spreadsheet would constrain the input to numbers, formula's [sic] and names. Fields on a date entry form might ask only for date input. These levels make it easier and faster for the HW recognition. They have two modes: one is gesture recognition and the other is interpret what the user is writing. Again, I haven't yet seen the API or if this all actually works. ANALYSIS Carr really wants us to write apps for their machine. I pointed out the many difficulties for us to do this - namely a whole new platform. I said I thought Windows with some modifications and enhancements would be ideal for this sort of computer. Essentially he's writing an operating system from scratch of which 90-95% of the functionality can be found in Windows or PW. Why is he doing all of this work when we have already done it? Mostly because he wanted to design something from the ground up which took into consideration the following: a pen being the primary interface, everything is in ram, can't crash the system, have to conserve battery power, and he needs a whole new class of apps. He figures that if people are going to have to write new apps, what's the big deal switching to a new platform? And since it's all object oriented, it's much faster to develop these apps. He certainly didn't convince me that [PAGE FOOTER] C:TMPDH002595. Thu Jun 08 15:05:14 1989 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 115 p2 of 3] creating a whole new, non-compatible OS was the right way to address their concerns.I really doubt they are going to radically change the direction of their company and use Windows or PH as their OS. But they are interested in co-existing nicely with current and future "desktop" operating systems and apps. This is where we can help them out a lot, mostly by exchanging information. Carr sees Microsoft as being potentially their biggest competitor, but he is still very interested in working closely with us on many different fronts. WHAT CARR WANTS Systems (1) Info on our Attributed File System. Should I send him this documentation? Urgent. (2) he needs a command/control language for his operating system. I mentioned BASIC and he's very interested. Should we consider licensing him some version of our interpreter, maybe OO BASIC, maybe EB? Urgent. (3) More info on protect mode windows. He still doesn't have a copy. (4) Info on our object oriented framework. Persistant objects, OOFS. Do we want to show him what we're doing? In what detail? Would it help him be more compatible with our objects? (5) Info on C++. They use C 5.11 for all of their development, and in their SDK. Apps (6) Email - he wants to talk to us, see how we're doing it and get some direction. If we have an engine we'd be willing to license, he's interested. (7) Microsoft developing apps for GO computer. His idea is that we would give them some money and they would find some developers (or we would send some down) then the developers could start wok on an app of our choice at GO. Carr was pushing for a wordprocessor. (Since lawyers would use this a lot for marking up documents, this would be a good entre into the legal market, he said.) The goal would be to produce a demo, and then decide on the next step. He said one of our main benefits of this would be learning what is involved in writing these types of apps. An interesting idea, but I don't think it makes too much sense for us to do real soon, if ever. We should keep talking to other vendors, and gradually figure out what approach to take. ACTION ITEMS
To: billg jeffr leno mikemap raleighr sherryr tandyt Subject: 2nd GO Trip Report Cc: gregs jeff raitha russw Date: Wed May 17 19:06:29 1989 GO Trip Report - May 15, 16 (100 lines long) Purpose of trip: (1) For me to learn in more detail what GO is developing. In particular (a) their development environment and (b) their notebook metaphor. We can take this information into consideration when putting Windows on similar types of machines. (2) Discuss GO's interest in licensing our email and BASIC technology. (3) Continue to tell GO that we believe a modified version of Windows is the best environment for this type of computer. Results: (1) (a) GO Development Environment This is really bad. Not only do they have a totally non-standard OS, but their way of doing object oriented programming is inefficient and hard to use. The reason for this is they do all of their OO stuff in C, not C++. And since everything in their system is an object, they force to [sic] programmer to adhere to their kludgy model. The way you apply a method to an object is to call the function ObjectCall() with three parameters: (1) the message # which the programmer defined in a .h file (2) a handle to the object (3) a pointer to a block which contains the params for that specific message. The object has to have its own message processing proc which does a switch on the message #, and then calls the relevant function. If you fall through the switch statement then you do a[n] ObjectCallAncestor() with the same params and pass the message up the hierarchy. To create virtual functions, you simply stop propagating the message. To access instance variables somewhere up in the hierarchy, you have to do and [sic] ObjectRead() call, which I imagine is as inefficient as the method dispatch. A lot of errors that would be caught by C++ at compile time (scoping, typing) will only be found at runtime, and this makes it MUCH more difficult to develop apps. The programmer also has to manually do a ton of things that C++ does automatically which makes the code much longer, more complex, and therefore more prone to have errors. GO claims that in this OO environment, more code will get re-used. This might be true, but a lot of sacrifices are being made. So why did they do their OO stuff this way? I think mostly because their [sic] isn't a really good C++ compiler in existence. They wanted to build on a very solid base, MS C, and put their objects on top of that. I don't think they realize the dangers of being only part way object oriented. (b) Notebook metaphor I think this stuff will work out fine. Essentially it is a [STAMPED] X 584360 CONFIDENTIAL C:TMPD[H?M?]002595 Thu Jan 08 15:05:14 1989 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 115 p3 of 3] [page number] 5specialized version of a shell. They have tabs on the side of the screen which represent folders, and then a table of contents and index. You can place GoTo buttons and PostIt Notes any place in the notebook. They could do all of this on top of Windows and I think it would be very good. One thing I might mention is that I never actually saw anything running on a computer, I just buried myself in stacks of documents for a few days. (2) Email and BASIC As far as email goes, we don't have anything to offer them. In 6-12 months when slingshot is further along we might talk about possibilities. If GO sticks with their OS, they would only be able to license some very low-level code from us. They are very interested in licensing EB from us. They have a table object which does indexing and other ISAM-like tasks. They are going to develop a forms app for people who need to do data entry outside of an office environment. And they need a language to snap the two pieces together. Sounds a lot like Visual BASIC to me. They also want to use EB as their "batch" language for the OS. This sounds like a mix between Ruby and VB. So, the question for us to ponder is whether or not we want to license them EB. (3) GO and Windows The whole time I was down there, I was politely telling them that it was very unlikely Microsoft would develop apps for their machine because of their non-standard OS and not so slick OO environment. Finally, Carr said he wanted to come up and discuss technical issues with the Win 3.0 people, and explore the possibilities. E.g. what kind of modifications to Windows would be necessary? This kind of caught me by surprise, but I said we'd be happy to do that. If anyone wants to see him while he's up here, let me know. Other Info: The one key piece we need in order to put Windows on flat computers made by other manufacturers is the handwriting recognition software. The GO people wouldn't let me get near any of their stuff (with good reason). So, while I was down there, I spent a night in the Stanford library photocopying six IBM research reports on this topic. These reports have fantastic bibliographies and references to groups (at universities and corporations) who have done work in this area. Eventually, we will have to decide if we want to acquire this technology or build it ourselves. I will be looking further into this subject. [page number] 6 C:TMPD[W?H?M?]2595. Thu Jul 08:15:05:14 1989 [STAMPED] X 584361 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 117 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 117 page 1 of 2] [STAMPED] Kaplan EXHIBIT 88 5.8.[20]02GO Corporation Confidential Mar 20, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Robert Carr DATE: June 16, 1989 SUBJECT: Draft Response to Microsoft Pitch for Cooperation COPY: Jerry K SAVED AS: \go\thirdpar\microsft\890616.fw3 Robert will call Jeff Raikes and say: Jeff, here's the range of what we're thinking. I want to give it to you now, within 1 week of our meeting last week. FIRST OF ALL: We agree to the principle that it's a shame for both parties to duplicate efforts or fragment the marketplace unnecessarily. We've really thought through the issues involved, and concluded: - We believe we've got the right
approach for NB computers. There are serious technical tradeoffs in the
rival approaches
[underline is handwritten] of GOOSE and Win H and we feel there's
significant market opportunity for a GOOSE solution.
- it doesn't make sense for us to use Win H in place of GOOSE - they might want to consider usign the consierable efforts & expertise we've already invested IF MS DOES NOT PROCEED WITH WIN H: There are circumstances under which we'd be open to MS being the licensing vehicle to 3rd party HW vendors. We would split royalties w/ MS. Under this scenario MS would not compete with GOOSE through a Win H product. MS would make material commitments towards their level of support through evangelism, 3rd party licensing efforts, tie-in development efforts etc. An equity investment in GO would be an additional possibility. Page 1 KAP0105 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 117 page 2 of 2] [STAMPED] KAP0106[Page Header] GO Corporation Confidential Mar 20, 1991 IF MS INSISTS ON PROCEDING WITH WIN H: If you do want to do your own work and system in this area, then we certainly still want to cooperate on: file format exchange & other tie ins. we're exploring MS Press publishing our reference books. you putting apps on our machine (but we're hesitant to have technical exchanqe with you on this until you assign active development teams for GO specific versions or until our technical design is public knowledge anyways). Once GOOSE is public, then we'll actively support you as much as you want. Handwriting Recognition licensing from GO to MS could be a topic of discussion. We'd probably look for royalty streams and healthy advance on royalties in return. If Jeff wants a written document: we'll be out of town next
week, after that we need some time and discussions with board
members to work up a more specific proposal or to capture
anything in writing. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 293 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 1 of 9] [STAMPED] X 188680 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] Raikes DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 48 10/18/[20]01 [STAMPED] X188680 stylus input) to those features stored in the computer. We [wo]uld add to this feature set to enable recognition of lower [ca]se (e.g. vertical height of the chars), but this would probably decrease the accuracy rate. Jeff said he thinks he knows how to do text recognition using ideas somewhat related to neural nets. This would take several years of development. Although Grid's handwriting s/w might not be as full fledged as GO's, there would be many fewer conflicts of interest in working closely with Grid instead of GO. Grid is in the business of selling hardware, unlike GO who sees themselves more like Apple selling both hardware and the system software. Grid wants to come up here around the first week in August to describe their handwriting s/w in gruesome detail and discuss other ways we might work with them on this project. They will also give us a demo of their machine. - Lloyd >From jeffr Mon May 28 16:14:19 1990 To: billg mikemap Subject: FYI-GO competition Date: Mon May 28 16:14:18 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 >From luist Mon May 28 15:30:01 1990 To: jeffr rice Subject: Go and Momenta(?) Date: Mon May 28 15:39:22 1990 I met a friend that just came from talking to GO and Momenta. Though she was under non-disclosure, she said a couple interesting things: * If we still had any doubts: GO is trying to licence their operating system. Her words: "they want competition in the hardware side...they want as many people as possible to build the machines" * About price: "it is a neat idea, but i have a hard time seeing many people paying so much money for it..." It sounds like it will be on the expensive side for a Grid like machine. For some reason she came out feeling they are equivalent (beyond the handwriting recognition side...), which is great news. GO will probably have a hard time positioning the machines (happy, Pradeep?). * About the 'Momenta' machine: "well, its [sic] so far into the future that it probably won't be very interesting" what is the momenta company about? : luis. >From jeffr Wed Jun 6 17:47:58 1990 To: billg jonll mikemap Subject: FYI-Momenta on GO Date: Wed Jun 6 17:47:57 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 >From pradeeps Wed Jun 6 16:04:07 1990 To: jeffr Subject: Info on GO from Momenta meeting [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 2 of 9] [STAMPED] X188681 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] 188681 Cc: lloydfr pradeeps Date: Wed Jun 6 16:04:05 1990 Jeff - you may want to relay some of this to Billg: Momenta claimed that IBM is giving $7m to GO; of which $700k is equity; $6.3m is pre-paid royalty. This originated as a single customer deal - initiated because of an $80m deal with an insurance industry IBM customer. Other perceptions from Momenta about GO: GO is a software company
(i.e [sic] looking
for OEM licencees). IBM is not restricting GO's ability to licence the
GO OS
to other OEM's. That there is a third unknown partner involved with IBM
and
GO. (My speculation: this could be Slate (no news there..) OR it could
be
Toshiba who is already supplying GO the integrated tablet and other h/w
components. Toshiba could be a GO OS licencee..)
>From jeffr Wed Jun 27 07:37:08 1990 To: billg mikemap Subject; FYI-Intel and GO-ByronB's comments Date: Wed Jun 27 07:37:08 1990 Mail flags: 0000 >From byronb Tue Jun 26 18:29:49 1990 Taken a face value, the meeting resolved around the issue that they are [a] hardware company want to purchase stylus/tablet technology CHEAPLY in order that they may manufacture these machines and we are a software company worried about the confusion caused to out OEMs by an apparent endorsement of GO software by intel. It may be telling that first major issue brought up was Mike's apparent fondness for the GO folder paradigm. It makes me quite skeptical that their only focus is hardware. I assume their real worry is that they want to make sure that stylus based machines use intel silcon [sic] (they said so) and they don't want to dependent on Microsoft for the software (they weren't willing to say this). They brought up the telling and accurate analogy of Microsoft hypothetically investing in MIPS. So they could be hedging their bets on stylus software. They seemed willing to do some sort of 'damage control' for the GO investment. They proposed an joint announcement by Intel/Microsoft saying that Intel is investing in hardware technology owned by GO and that Intel supports supports WIN-H as tha OS of choice for stylus based computers. They even proposed bringing in an OEM willing to announce an intel x86 win-h machine. This offer seemed insincere considering they want to sign with GO next week and that we told them we were not willing to announce Win-H until October. While they would love to hear about what leads Lloyd can give them about other hardware technologies sources. It will not change their mind on GO; they will just view them as additional sources of technologies. We did not convince them to not invest in GO. We probably convinced
[th]em that 1) the investment will give bad signals to OEMS 2) We are
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 3 of 9]
[STAMPED] X188682 CONFIDENTIAL What should we do? From my humble view point in the trenches ... Reiterate through Bill our concern about confusing the Market and OEMs and work with them on 'damage control' to see if they are serious on this. My read is the deal is as much as done with GO and from their point of view today's meeting was about learning more about what is going on in the notebook computer world and not about reconsidering Intel's investment. Some impressions from the demo ... When one of the intel guys tried the tablet (who admittedly had
bad writing), I was embarrassed by the results, but he gave the comment
he thought it was quite good. I got some genuine Wows! with the cursive
demo (4 out of 6 words correct). This tells me one of three things:
1) Go is not as far along as we think. 2) They have not seen GO's
handwriting
yet (unlikely) or 3) They were being polite.
>From jeffr Wed Jun 27 07:34:19 1990 To: billg byronb carls lloydfr marline pradeeps Subject: Intel Stylus Technology/GO Corp. Cc: mikemap nathanm paulma samf steveb Date: Wed Jun 27 07:34:16 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 Addition to CarlS's mail: They didn't say the investment in GO would be for hardware only. In
fact,
[Pa]ul Otellini specifically said that they might "have the GO
operating
[en]vironment on the shelf, and if an OEM (AT&T was the
hypothetical
OEM used) wants to buy it, they would sell it." I pointed out how
potentially confusing that was, and Michael Aymar jumped in with a
comment about how we did software for the Mac.
>From Carls Tue Jun 26 18:46:38 1990 To: billg byronb jeffr lloydfr marline pradeeps Cc: mikemap nathanm paulma samf steveb Subject: Intel Stylus Technology/GO Corp. Date: Tue Jun 26 18:44:52 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 We met today with the group of people at Intel that is pushing an investment in Go Corp. We attempted to dissuade them from that investment by seeking to find ways to meet their objectives without this investment and by explaining why we thought the investment would be a bad idea. In particular, we presented the Windows H project to them. We didn't suceed in convincing them not to invest, and they did not appear very open minded. One appropriate followup is probably for us to write a letter to Grove with a followup phone call by Bill Intel [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 4 of 9] [STAMPED] X188683 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] X188683 Microsoft: Jeffr, Pradeeps, Lloydfr, Marline, ByronB, Carls Our objectives for the meeting were to:
Intel believes that stylus computers represent a very important emerging market; they want to be sure that Intel participates in that market both by having Intel chips used in those computers as well as as a manufacturer of such computers. Go is not the only investment Intel has been pursuing in this area--there has already been one that has fallen through and they will consider more. I inferred from listening to them that Aymar, Galvin (who works for Harold Hughs), and Avram Miller (not present) are proponents of the stylus market oportunity, and are trying to get Intel into it. We had told Intel that we think an investment in Go Corp would be a bad idea. These guys wanted to operate under the assumption that Intel would invest in Go, and how could we minimize or mitigate any damage--they were not very open minded. This is understandable since they have been pushing the Go investment inside Intel and see us as an obstacle toward their objective. They had been told to come and see what we are developing and if it changes the rationale for investing in Go, but these guys clearly want to make the investment. [L]loyd, Pradeep and Byron gave a good presentation of what we are trying [t]o achieve and how we will go about doing it. We covered [h]ow we are building on top of standard Windows and standard Windows apps, and that we are working with numerous OEMs. Byron's presentation on our character recognition software was particularly good--I think they were impressed that we are pushing the state of the art in this area. We attempted to understand what their objectives were in making the investment. They gave the following:
It is not clear what technology it is that they hope to get from Go. They said something about a squishy tablet. When we asked them to list the technology they wanted, the list was:
And a key point they made is that they want access to this
technology
without having to give up any Intel technology (e.g. chip licenses).
[I?] don't know enough about Go--someone tell me if I am wrong--but it
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 5 of 9] [STAMPED] X188864 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] X188684 seems unlikely to me that Go has such great hardware technology in
[t]hese areas--it sounds like stuff you would get from Japan. We
[vo]lunteered that we could help Intel to get access to the technology
from someone else, and they asked us to follow up on that. This is what they said. Unclear what the real motives are. The investment in Go would give them a license to Go's design as well as Go's software, including sublicensing rights. As I mentioned they weren't really interested in finding alternative ways to get stylus/tablet technology--they wanted to take the approach of saying: assume that Intel does invest in Go, how can we mitigate the impact? They say they are willing to position their investment as strictly a hardware technology investment, and issue an endorsment of Windows H. We did not pursue this discussion. The points we made are:
[Th]eir response is: they don't care about Go's operating system and whether or not it succeeds; they will work to reduce any impact on OEMs and ISVs by positioning it as a hardware-only investment; it isn't an OS thing so it's not anti-Microsoft; the Go platform can be made to run DOS; and this is a quick way to get technology. We weren't making any progress, so we ended the discussion. If they are sincere about what their objectives are, then if we show them alternative sources for the technology, we ought to be able to persuade them from the investment. I fear that either they have further motives, or this is another case where Intel has just decided to do "something", which means put money into something they think helps x86. Without considering how OEMs are going to feel, how we are going to feel, or whether it really makes any sense at all. Just throw money at it. Sounds like the Bell Technology deal. Or some of Intel's Unix work. Aymar asked a lot of questions about application software, and how users locate documents and files and things; how they navigate through "folders" etc. I think he thinks of Windows as being too complicated. I don't know if he has seen some demos of Go software that look easier to use, but that is my impression. That makes me think they must also be interested in Go's software and just not telling us. I would have to assume that reducing their dependence on Microsoft is also in their minds. [Th]ere are 2 next steps: [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 6 of 9] [STAMPED] X 188685 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] X188685
>From tomos Mon Jul 16 04:52:30 1990 To: lloydfr Subject: Summary report of Intel Team in Japan Cc: billg carls jeffr makon mikemap pradeeps samf tomos Date: Mon Jul 16 20:42:04 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 Subject: Summary report of Intel Team in Japan. Followings are summary report for the above mentioned team's activities in Japan. I coordinated meetings with Kyocera, Wacom and Seiko Denshi for their survey of stylus technology . Prior to those meetings. I had a preliminary discussion with them on 7/11 at the hotel to get their objectives of survey in Japan. 1. Team members and visiting schedule.
Mike is the boss of the team and he knows the latest stylus technology and trend. He is the key person to create a report to Grove. He knows the fact that GO is using Wacom's stylus pad for their product under development when I asked the question. Kathryn is software oriented person who want [sic] to know hardware from Hand Writing Recognition software(HWR) point of view. She made several questions related required functions for better recognition rate and she showed much interest in Sony Palmtop when i saw it to her. She might be a key person for Win-H discusion scheduled in Redmond on 7/17. Tom has his interest in possibility to expand market of Intel's microprocessor through stylus computer including development of co-processor for HWR. >From these point of view, Intel's team will create their report from several point [sic] of view not from one point of stylus technology. 2. Objectives of their survey in Japan. Mike indicated their objectives of survey in the preliminary meeting. Intel has interest in stylus computer itself as the possible new computer in the future which will expand market opportunity of Intel's microcomputer. They want to establish the platform of microcomputer in this product segment same as they succeeded in PC. >From this point of view, they want to know following points to be reported to Grove prior to the meeting on 7/20. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 7 of 9] [STAMPED] X 188686 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] X188686 I will finish this report now. If you have questions, please call me [a]t the office, I will be the office 9:00-9:30AM Japan time then will be out of office. Regards Tom
>From johnsa Tue Jul 17 12:07:09 1990 To: billg jonl lloydfr mikehal mikemap steveb tonya Subject: ibm/go announcement Date: Tue Jul 17 12:05:13 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 lee reiswig just called to inform me that there will be an announcement today that ibm and go are engaged in a joint project to pilot certain pen based applications. if the pilot works out it could lead to jointly developed porducts [sic]. ibm is licensing certain go technology. the Q & As will attempt to address the DOS issues as follows:
He will send us a copy of the press release.
[>F]rom jeffr Tue Jul 17 22:20:45 1990 To: mikemap Subject: Go ancmnt - GRID's questions.. Date: Tue Jul 17 22:20:44 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 >From pradeeps Tue Jul 17 14:54:22 1990 I just spoke to Alan Lefkof (Pres, Grid Systems). GO is announcing their machine tomorow. (I don't know if this is a separate, but related event to the IBM press release described in Johnsa's email). Alan wanted to know what was going to be our response and what should he say about Win-H. He didn't have much data on the announcement, except that IBM will endorse and licence the s/w (not h/w) and that three ISV's will be there: Slate, Pensoft (a 2 man flaky operation) and either Lotus or Borland. We think it's Borland. (Dan Bricklin is coming West this week for the announcement, I guess, not for a board meeting). Aln Lefkof plans to say that Grid has a large account focus which requires open architectures and adherence to standards. MS-DOS is the standard today. As new standrads [sic] emerge, Grid will look at them. He does not plan to say anything about Win-H unless we decide that we are going to. Even then, he is concerned that we would be forced to talk about unannounced harware [sic] if he said that Grid [wa]s making a machine which will run Win-H. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 8 of 9] I've told him that I will talk to Jeffr and get back to him with our
party
[li]ne.
>From jeffr Tue Jul 17 21:59:19 1990 To: billg mikehal mikemap rice sarahch steveb w-connib w-pamed Subject: FYI-GO says Date: Tue Jul 2l 21:59:16 1990 Mail-Flags: 0000 >From mcimail?TO:__Gregory_Stikeleather#___EMS:_MCI_MAIL#__MBX:_0004262752 Tue To: JeffR Subject: GO Press Briefing Date: Tue Jul 17, 1990 1:16pm EST From: Gregory Stikeleather EMS: MCI Mail MBX: 0004262752 Handling: LETTER Message-Id: 21900717231512/0004262752NB1EM Dear Jeff, Congratulations on your promotion to Vice President of Office Systems. It is certainly clear outside of Microsoft the key role you have played in building the applications Division, and we here at GO are pleased to see you acknowledged for your work. Everything is proceeding well here; in fact, we are conducting a [pr]ess briefing this week that outlines part of our strategy. We [wa]nted you to hear this directly from us. These are our four [m]ajor points at the briefing:
I am sending you press releases that you should receive tomorrow. Jerry sends his regards. Sincerely, Greg Stikeleather >From lloydfr Wed Jul 18 23:15:50 1990 To: billg carls jeffr johnsa mikehal mikemap rice sarahch steveb tonya w-connib w-pamed [Plaintiff's Exhibit 293 p. 9 of 9] Subject: GO NewsDate: Wed Jul 18 23:13:12 1990 [Ma]il-Flags: 8000 UPf 07/18 2304 IBM licenses pen based computer technology By BRIAN ROONEY SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) -- IBM Corp. gave an important endorsement Wednesday to an emerging technology that allows computer users to enter data with pen-like writing devices. The nation's largest computer company announced it was the first licensee of a pen based computer operating system developed by Go Corp. of Foster City, Calif., a 3-year-old startup company. IBM said it intended to create computers operated by pens on a flat screen. The computers will be able to easily exchange information with other IBM and IBM-compatible personal computers. Insurance examiners, architects and other mobile professionals could use the portable machines on the job and later transfer the information into their primary computers. The technology "will make using a computer as easy as writing on a piece of paper," said James Cannavino, IBM vice president and general manager of its Personal Systems Division. Cannavino said it was too early to tell when IBM would introduce its first pen-operated computers or how much they would cost. Because of IBM's size in the computer industry, its endorsement could make Go's technology the standard for pen-based computers, just as IBM's licensing of Microsoft Corp.'s DOS operating system made it the standard for personal computers in the 1980s. Go Corp. said it would make its technology available to any manufacturer that wanted to license it. IBM also invited other manufacturers to adopt the Go system. Software developers Lotus Development Corp., Borland International, Wordperfect Corp., Slate Corp. and PenSoft Corp. already have announced plans to develop software applications for Go's operating system. Companies that are developing their own pen-based machines adopted a wait-and-see approach to Go's system. "I think IBM's endorsement of the whole stylus-based computing market is nothing but good news for people building these types of devices," Rizzo said. "It is way too soon to make any kind of rational statement about whether it will be a standard." Grid Systems Corp., the first U.S. company to introduce a pen-operated computer last fall, said it would let the marketplace set the standard but would consider licensing Go's technology if necessary. [La]st page !
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 349 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 349 p. 1 of 3] 112>From gregw Tue Jul 31 23:56:40 1990 To: billg darrylr jeffr mikemap Cc: bradsi jabeb lloydfr tonyw Subject: Re: GO threat Date: Tue Jul 31 23:42:48 1990 The L&E stuff was not meant to be a real architecture. Our applications could not respond to a real architecture. The AppDT work will form the basis of a real OO architecture - a robust extensible data model which works with the AFX view models. Our instances can't be viewed as containers of information today. This means that it is very difficult to implement index and content querying. The system would be forced into understanding file formats (we know this is not workable). (the remainder is long) The GO machine brings home the following point in a big way. Once we have implemented enough interesting data types and viewers using [here a "?" appears on a line by itself, apparently a glitch] our OO frameworks and interfaces, there is no need for DOS and Windows as we know it. Instead, the file system can be replaced by a simple memory manager with a backing store to yield persistence. The notion of processes and applications disappears replaced by a single address space with concurrent threads of activity. On the notebook, detached from [the] rest of the world, the security of separate processes is unnecessary. There is still a need for concurrency controlled resource management (memory and screen real-estate). Why bother with DOS apps or Windows apps as we know them, the DOS apps don't interoperate and the Windows apps are not much better. These apps are easier to write - no file formats and I/O (only in-memory storage), few format conversions (enough to support content and queries), natural container-containee relationships, garbage collection, objects have well defined behavior (implement a set of protocols). Objects that can be queried support the content protocols. The system can enumerate all objects. If it makes sense to have a container which knows about all instances of a particular type, this is easy to implement and install. The GO UI is probably the least interesting part of the product from a technical perspective. Like Hypercard and some aspects of Toolbook, it will show how far graphics art can take you. Of all of our products Windows 3.0 is perhaps the best, but it doesn't come close to these other examples. [here a "?" appears on a line by itself, apparently a glitch] GO is scary but they are a small player attaching themselves to a limited hardware platform. Their distributed machine plans are interesting and very focused. In our business there are the following things that are important - [STAMPED] EXHIBIT 35 [indistinct due to fax or repeated photocopying] [STAMPED] X 531240 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 349 p. 2 of 3] 1. ownership of the information type implementation 2. location of the information 3. diversity of information types 4. end-user ability to integrate information into new components We need to be taking control of these 4 things with our system and application strategies. GO (or any new platform) is going to have a hard time addressing these 3 issues. They are completely dependent on making the hardware platform compelling soon after the initial introductions. We need to understand what we think are the compelling features and have a response in the form of product and strategy. We won't be able to get a product (an OEM to support us) until we have a compelling strategy to sell. ? [sic] The OO architected system is the key part of that strategy (we need to [sic?] same pitch to go against New Wave except forget the NT-OS/2 heavy duty features for notebook computers). We need to be able to demonstrate that handwriting does not require new UI concepts and looks by making existing apps work with minimal changes. Most of the apps that people say that notebook computers need are keyboard apps that we are missing today. Other apps like the math equation app are just brain-dead - what ever their implementation, it is unlikely that it can be effectively reused at a low level in other places in the system - high level reuse is easier but the right application contexts need to be found. What do we have going for us - 1. handwriting is neat but not as reliable as a keyboard for entry 2. handwriting computers will have keyboard options 3. with a keyboard DOS apps can run 4. handwriting / pen interface techniques integrate smoothly into Windows apps 5. information is naturally exchanged with the primary location (no unreliable format converters - using the same application) 6. diversity of applications for our environments 7. long term strategy that makes sense on the three interesting machine environments - notebook, workstation and server. Keep the picture simple. The GO solution is weak on interoperability with the ?[SIC] workstation and server. 8. new hardware fits into the big picture of office work - take home and travel (take the information with you) 9. huge ISV support for Windows apps with huge base (can evangelize when software and hardware are ready - need it soon) 10. ... (we have some more going for us - left to the reader as an exercise) What are we missing - 1. low-end personal organizer apps (windows desktop needs these also) 2. low-end information types (we're dieing [sic] for windows works 2.0) 3. OEM hardware (may be we have it) 4. some of the below What do we have going against us - [STAMPED] X 531241 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 349 p. 3 of 3] 1. higher cost due to larger memory requirements (need to figure out if this is offset by lower software costs - we have a2 machine / 1 user licensing problem) 2. compelling features of GO UI and software 3. very focused competitors - we need a good economic model for their businesses - the financial bootstrapping process for them is complicated and could be interrupted by successfully using our advantages above ? [SIC] 4. confusing endorsements by OEMs like IBM 5. ... (there must be more) The bottom-line is that we have a compelling alternative to the GO machine. We are having real difficulties in articulating it. Enough said by me - use it as you like - I have other things to do. [BELOW EMAIL IS QUOTED IN THE ABOVE EMAIL] >From billg Tue Jul 31 21:39:11 1990
Subject: GO threat Date: Tue Jul 31 21:36:15 1990 In reviewing some sketchy stuff on the GO machine it is clear that the threat posed by GO is as much an integration threat as a handwriting threat. By using an object oriented approach they allow for searching, hypertext linking, and index and table of contets across all data types. They allow new objects to be added easily in their framework. Their shell is quite visual -- with foler [sic, "folder"] tabs and pages. We should try and learn more about it. Meanwhile it is time for our L&E stuff to deal with linking and sorting. I can't believe we don't have this as part of our architecture when a real architecture would al [sic] allow for these things. Our handwriting group should write up what they know. ACtually [sic] the esther dyson article does a good job explaining what should be done ?[sic] (GO doesn't do all of it). PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 355 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 1 of 14] [STAMPED] Gates DEPOSITION 56 2/28/[20]02[STAMPED] X555301 CONFIDENTIAL [handwritten] GO Corp --> Lloyd Frink [checkmark] 8M 8/13/[19]90 Microsoft Memo To: billg darrylr, jeffr, mikemap, bradsi [handwritten underline] jabeb, tonyw, gregw, [s?]andyt, pradeeps, marline Subject: GO Corp Info. From: lloydfr Date: 8/1/[19]90 Attached is a packet of information I have collected on GO. There are some of GO's very preliminary specs, a slide show of theirs, two of my trip reports on GO, and some press information. Essentially, GO has been going out and telling the world that you need a whole new OS and apps for portable, pen based computers. People seem to bite on this, especially when they see that IBM is a strong backer of the GO OS (GOOSE). They use their notebook shell and OO framework combined with gestures and handwriting recognition to show everyone that their platform is indeed very different from the standard Windows/Mac world. They say you can't "hack this into an existing OS." Well, we know this isn't so, and the best way to prove them wrong is to do our own "notebook" app. The big constraint is that we get it done in a year. So this won't be the most beautiful thing, but it should serve as a stopgap measure until we do our Win 4 shell and have all of our OO stuff in place. GO Notebook Shell When you turn on a GO computer, the user sees something that looks like a notebook. You can write directly on the page, probably do pictures as well. On a page you can open many document windows of any type. They use an object oriented approach to their OS, so opening up a document is just creating an instance of that clss type. When I was down at GO, Carr talked a lot about embedded documents, bu thte screen shots we have don't actually show that. These guys are smart, so I'll bet they will make it possible. When you leave a page, and later return to it, all of the documents will be in the same state as when you left (i.e. open/iconic, position). At the top of the screen is a menu bar with system-wide and generic document commands. If you want to create a new, blank document, you use the Create menu and choose the document type. Inside of each document are menus that correspond to that class. Besides the many benefits of being OO, the thing which sets the GO notebook apart is the ease of navigation. On the side of each page are a set of "tabs" which correspond to folders, just a page in the notebook. Touch the tab and instantly you will go to a predefined workspace (similar to excel, but multiple document/object types). It is not clear if they are going to have only one level of folders, a "show all tabs" command, or some sort of hierarchy. The really nice thing about these tabs is that they are always visible and never get obscured by other windows. There are prev, next, and back buttons as well (the upper right hand corner). I suggested they add the ability push and pop of pages (hypercard). At the beginning of the notebook is a Table of Contents, which is a listing of the folder and page titles. At the end of the notebook is an Index of keywords the user has marked. Clicking on an item in either the TOC or index sends the user to that page. The user can also search for information in all documents and can create "goto" links (not really clear how they have implemented the latter). There are probably several other standard methods which can be applied to all objcets. This metaphor does have a few drawbacks. If they number every page by sequence, and you keep inserting pages, then your page numbers are always changing and lose some meaning. Since they seem to be avoiding very many levels of hierarchy, what happens when you get tons of info? Does something like a piece of email belong on a page by itself, or with other email? What about rolodex cards? You kind of have next, perv, back navigational type issues within a window on a single page of a notebook. The notion of having a multiple page document, or a multiple record table in a window on a signle page of a notebook might seem confusing. But this metaphor has a lot of appeal, especially compared to our program/file manager combination. I thnk we can whip something up in a year that embodies some of these ideas. I'll think about this in more detail and write it down in the next few weeks. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 2 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555302 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 1 [Handwritten caption to diagram: GO Corporation Confidential] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 3 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555303 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 2 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 4 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555304 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 3 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 5 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555305 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 4 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 6 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555306 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 5 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 7 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555307 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 6 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 8 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555308 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 7 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 9 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555309 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 8 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 10 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555310 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 9 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 11 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555311 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 10 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 12 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555312 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 11 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 13 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555313 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 12 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 355 Page 14 of 14] [STAMPED] X 555314 CONFIDENTIAL[This exhibit page shows a pen-computing user interface] [The diagram is labelled with a document control number] 4.4.89 4 [the last "4" is crossed out and replaced by a handwritten] 13 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 359 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [resolution too poor to resolve periods and colons: these have been inserted where the text implies them] >From lloydfr Thu Aug 9 15:32:22 1990 To: mikemap Subject: GO Info Cc: cathyw Date: Thu Aug 9 15:25:21 1990 I sent a memo to you last week which had a bunch of info on GO corp. Turns out some of it was confidential and I was not supposed to make copies. Could you please return all of it to me so that I can destroy it? Thanks - Lloyd [handwritten] [indistinct] Material Redacted [STAMPED] Raikes DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 99 11/2/[20]01 [STAMPED] X 578746 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] X578746 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 370 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] >From jeffr Wed Aug 29 19:41:42 1990 To: debem Subject: Please print Date: Wed Aug 29 19:40:13 1990 For Go Corp file. Thx. Jeff -------------- >From claraj Wed Aug 29 19:32:28 1990 To: jeffr rice Subject: GO Date: Wed Aug 29 19:28:50 1990 Phil Taylor, Dir. of PC Platform at Softview (a forms co.), is quite eager to give us info on GO. One of their software developers has attended two training sessions, April and June this year. Phil has access to technical documentation and will get more detailed information. Softview has put a halt on pursuing the GO platform due to lack of resources in time and money in writing apps for a new operating environment. He is definitely interested in developing Windows apps. Being a Windows developer himself, he is definitely pushing for Win-H and open to giving us info on GO. I think he's being straightforward in his description. He was flipping through the papers while talking to me. Due to my novice status, some of this information may be redundant, and the more technical information a bit fuzzy. So...based on a technical documentation dated April 24, 1990, the GO machine has: 12 MHz. 80c 286. Zero weight [sic,
should be "wait"] state.
3 meg RAM std expandable to 8 1 meg FEPROM
640x400 resolution. Black and white. LCD. Super Twister Reflection.2 meg SRAM for user data 800 DPI 1:1 aspect ratio 4 shades of gray 9.5" x 13" x 1" with screen size of 5.5" x 8" weight: 4.5 lbs removable NiCd battery with backup Lithium cell. Battery life is 4 hours with 1.5 hrs to recharge. optional expansion slot for Group 3 fax board - 9600 baud Stylus is cordless. (Phil will check on button) supports in & out proximity, pen events (move up, down, window enter and exit) NO disks. No h/d or floppy disks. The current GO notepad has three components: memory, screen and pen. It does offer an optional base station module-recharger that includes serial and parallel port to print to (HP LaserJet II, Dyconax 150 [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 62 4/19/[20]02 [STAMPED] X531215 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 370 Page 2 of 3] [STAMPED] X 531216 CONFIDENTIAL (portable printer), Epson Fx/LQ), standard IBM PS/2 keyboard and Appletalk RS232. Floppy drives and hardware modules are optional on the base station. Phil does not believe that GO is manufacturing the hardare, He heard a rumor that IBM is. GO has been having a tough time in receiving the hardware to fit their time schedule. Handwriting recognition is CURSIVE and trainable. Phil does not think it's neuronetbased, based on it being a 286. The developer who went to the training class was very impressed by the demo. However, it was used only by Go's representative and not tried out by anyone from the audience. Recognition is concurrent with a slight lag but not distracting. He has little information on Go's hwx other than they are using static and dynamic approaches (speed, direction, sequence, timing). Go does NOT havg a collision problem between gestures and characters. It doesn't sound like they're relying on different modlities. They've spent much effort in defining them and have cycled them twice already in the past few months. As of April, they were using double taps, triple taps, circle, carets, horizontal and vertical slash, question mark, X. Having started out with 20 system gestures, they have cut it down to 10-12. Phil mentioned that they're shooting for the magic seven. In addition to system gestures are application gestures and user-defined gestures (???). GO uses a constant daytimer metaphor with tabs on the side, even when an application is being used. Thus, it forces the user to define the GO notepad as a daytimer. Applications bundled are a word processor and a central address book. Tbeir operating system includes file conversion and network communication. Optional software is a drawing program (COM ??), a faxviewer and forms. He mentioned Tenpoint as one of their ISV's. It does do multitasking, threads -- perhaps pre-emptive multitasking. With reqards to the operating environment codenamed OSN, it's pseudo object-oriented written in C, not C++. It utilizes special structures and pound defines to look like object oriented code. But it is definitely not an object-oriented language. It contains an app framework, Win class, app class and object-oriented exensions to C. The developing environment contains standard editors, linkers
and
source code debuggers. Development is done on DOS. Tools are
DOS-based. The debugger and the emulator is done on Codeview.
Developers develop on the PC on an emulator which simulates the
GO environment. Then, when they receive the hardware, they can
cross compile on the GO machine. The developing environment is
split. One compiles and links on text-based DOS. But, booting is
graphical (Windows). Thus, the developer has to be aware of DOS
and Windows. Apparently, Go is pushing their training classes
(100
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 370 Page 3 of 3] [STAMPED] X 531217 CONFIDENTIAL ISV's in the April session) to encourage ISV development prior to having the hardware prototypes. Phil says converting existing apps to OSN is highly dependent on how carefully the coding has been done and most likely result in re-programming from scratch. No compatability with DOS or Windows. Phil will get hold of more manuals and sort through then, in addition to talking to the person who went through training to get a better feel of UI. I told him I'll contact him Monday--to give him time. Given that further information is probably more technical, I think one of the development team should be here when I talk to him. Hope this information is useful. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 443 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 443 p1 of 2] [STAMPED] X531274 CONFIDENTIAL>From jeffr Thu Nov 1 07:37:40 1990 To: debem Subject: Please print Date: Thu Nov 1 07:35:39 1990 For Go Corp file. Thx. Jeff ---------------- >From lloydfr Wed Oct 31 16:40:34 1990 To: billg gregs jeffr mikemap pradeeps Subject: Approaching GO Date: Wed Oct 31 16:39:37 1990 Our primary mission right now is to stop GO. We could do this by either 1) making sure they sign up no OEMs or ISVs, hence have no customers or 2) convert them to Windows. I've been thinking that it might not be such a bad idea to give #2 a shot again. My reasoning follows. No matter what GO says, they know they don't need a whole new OS to do most of the things they are doing. I believe the reason they've gone into the OS business is mainly to make a lot of money, but also because they did not want to be burdened with the past. The fact that we've sold over a million copies of Win 3 and developers are flocking to Windows might make them see that being "burdened with the past" really isn't such a disadvantage. And, we've heard from someone inside of GO that GO is running into Win-H everywhere, especially the people Billg has spoken to; they call it FUD. If we've spoken to the accounts first, GO has a hard time getting off the ground. And to people GO though they had locked up and we talk to them, GO has to visit them again (Cannon?). The idea is not to get them to convert right away, but to build a relationship with them so that it is not so distasteful for them to go that direction at some point in the future. Right now we are the big bad Goliath, and I don't think we have much to lose by being very open with them about what we are doing and how they could fit into it. How could GO make money working with Windows? Basically I think they have a lot of smart people and good ideas. They have three things which would work well on top of Windows - their HWX, their notebook shell with applets, and their OO framework. They should see that as well as portables. there is a huge desktop market that could use this same technolgoy. And you just have to have a compatible OS to try and reach the desktop. If they decided to port their stuff to Windows, then they would essentially be competing with both the handwriting group (HWX and notebook applets) and AFX, but not the Windows group. We could license Win 3.1 to OEMs, and then the OEMs could buy GOs stuff on topof that. I'm not sure how much of a business opportunity this is, but at least it is something for GO to fall back on if they are unsucessful in the path they are taking now. Also, do we want to risk losing some of potential revenue? If we were to approach GO, I assume we would meet with them, give them our API's now and an SDK when it's ready. We might want to show them a demo of the compatibility layer, but definitely not the notebook. We'd just try to be more open and friendly and not ask for anything in return. We'll say that our apps division will consider writing apps for [Plaintiff's Exhibit 443 p2 of 2] the GO machine, but realistically we wouldn't make that decision until they have sold a fairly large number of machines.A last benefit of taking this friendly approach is that we might lessen the chances of them suing us for some unknown reason right as they are about to go under. Just an idea, any comments? - Lloyd [STAMPED] X 531275 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 478 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 478 p. 1 of 4] GO Corporation Confidential Mar 5, 1994December 2, 1990 Jerry Kaplan notes for meeting with Jim Cannavino Executive Summary * Go has excellent technology, lead
time, visibility, and is well received by industry
* GO + IBM licensing has not proved enough to win over other companies to date * Microsoft strong competitive threat has stalled progress, put financial pressure on GO GO Status * Completing "developer release" of 286
hardware and software
excellent reception of development
environment by ISVs
* Penpoint unveiling and developer product announcement Jan [19]91200 people trained Tens of application development projects good press, visibility, book series * Starting on 386 version software promiseed to IBM end of 3Q91
* Customers excited about productIBM special accounts signed up and
ready to go
* $15M raised - will last for the next year.Many VARs interested, seeking credible hardware vendor GO's Plans * Establish "clean" 32-bit 386 version
as market standard
* Limit 286 to developers and pilot testing * Complete and license 386 hardware version, then * Spin out hardware/system's busines January Announcement * Full day of press and developer activities, San Fran 1/22 * Boston Computer Society meeting 1/23 Page 1 [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 34 4/18/[20]02 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] KAP0500 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 478 p. 2 of 4] [PAGE HEADER] GO Corporation Confidential Mar 5, 1994 * Third party application products announcements * With luck, possible additional Penpoint licensees * Expect VERY heavy press coverage What will it take for us to succeed? * Multiple manufacturers with Penpoint machines * ISV support * Staying power to fight competition during market development What are we finding? * "Wait and see" attitude among manufacturers IBM support is not effectively communicated Unlike the PC, no IBM machines as example Unlike the PC, no proven market need * Good developer support, but concern about when machines will be available. General availability in 1991 is essential. * Microsort is stalling our progress, hoping to starve us out Microsoft - our only serious competition * Their strengths - Perceived as a standard setter. Financial staying power. Relationships with ISVs, OEMs. * What they are doing - Copying us. Creating confusion. Promising everything to everyone. Tryinq to unhook our ISVs, licensees. Nearly giving product away. * Their basic pitch - Microsort is standard setter, not IBM/GO. They will do whatever GO does in time. Their system will be compatible with Windows. IBM will be forced to work with them eventually. [PAGE FOOTER] Page 2 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] KAP0501 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 478 p. 3 of 4] [PAGE HEADER] GO Corporation Confidential Mar 5, 1994 GO's strategic advantages * Great technoloqy - only system really designed for a pen * Two year lead over Microsoft * Outstanding development staff - 60 of 90 people * Attracting the creative talents of the developer community * IBM "design win" and public support What we need from IBM * Increase visisbility of IBM comitment * Clear messages 1. IBM sees a major market for pen-based computers. 2. IBM has evaluated Microsoft and GO, and has chosen to work exclusively with GO. 3. IBM is supporting GO to make Penpoint an open industry standard. 4. IBM will bring a product to market running Penpoint in 1991. 5. IBM is now working with major customers on pilot projects. * Promotion of GO licensing efforts Active support from IBM Japan executives Direct high level contacts: NCR, Toshiba, others? * Ship a Penpoint machine to general distribution as soon as possible * ISV support Assign advocacy/technical support resources Seeding/""scholarship" program for universities Multi-city road show support Internal applications development - ASD? Outside applications support - Easel? Internal Territory Management Systems effort? "Venture fund" for Penpoint ISVs [PAGE FOOTER] Page 3 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] KAP0502 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 478 p. 4 of 4] [PAGE HEADER] GO Corporation Confidential Mar 5, 1994 What can you do personally? * Strong video endorsesment for January announcement Personal appearance at Boston Computer Society, Authorize a WSJ ad congratulating GO. * A few interviews - Fortune Magazine (by 12/10), some dailies * Improve and expand executive focus on helping GO to succeed Promote GO/IBM relationship inside and outside Clear roadblocks, reduce bureaucracy, control PR Centralize and coordinate negotiations * Allocate some discretionay budget for non-development Penpoint promotional activities * Do not cooperate with Microsoft in this area at this time! Summary * We've got the right technology, the lead time, and the hearts of the ISVs. * We need to turn up the heat on Microsoft. * We need to exand IBM standard setting support, * We need to increase overall investment in Penpoint, Give us air cover and runway, and we'll create a new (non-Microsoft) systems software standard for pen-based computers! [PAGE FOOTER] Page 4 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] KAP0503 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 687 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 687 Page 1 of 2] [Fax Cover Sheet]To: EXECUTIVE From: MICROSOFT CORP APR 18 [19]'91 11:00 FROM GO CORPORATION PAGE .001 4-18-91 12:09pm p.1 GO Corporation [ADDRESS / FAX / TELEPHONE] DATE: 4-18-[19]91 TO: NAME: Mr. Bill Gates COMPANY: Microsoft FAX NUMBER: [FAX] FROM: NAME: Jerry Kaplan NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 2 IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE RECEIPT OF THIS FAX, PLEASE CONTACT: Holli Maxwell AT [TELEPHONE] MESSAGE: Thank you! [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 39 4/18/[20]/02 [STAMPED] X 504392 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 687 Page 2 of 2] [ADDED BY FAX PROCESS] To: EXECUTIVE From: MICROSOFT CORP 4-16-[19]91 12:09 pm p.2[ADDED BY FAX PROCESS] APR 18 91 11:00 FROM GO CORPORATION PAGE 002 [STAMPED] X 504393 CONFIDENTIAL [ADDED BY FAX PROCESS] ** TOTAL PAGE 002 ** [LETTERHEAD] GO CORPORATION [ADDRESS] [FACSIMILE] [TELEPHONE] April 17, 1991 Mr. Bill Gates Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer MICROSOFT CORPORATION 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 Dear Bill: This is to follow up on our phone call of yesterday. I appreciate your offer to sit down with me to discuss any potential issues GO may have with Pen Windows. As I explained, at this time I am simply trying to learn enough about Pen Windows to make an informed evaluation. I’d like to take you up on your offer to provide us with relevant materials without restriction. We have already received the Pen Windows developer kit, but it arrived with a license agreement stating that it must only be used for the purpose of developing applications. Given our conversation, I will assume that it is OK with you for us to examine these materials vithout signing the license. If this is not what you had in mind, please let me know by next Monday. I will wait until than before opening the materials. Should the developers kit not contain the current version of the “notebook applet”, may I request that you forward this to me (object code is fine, as long as we can run it). After we get a chance to look over these materials, I will let you know if additional materials will be helpful. I will try to complete an evaluation in a timely manner. I’d like to reiterate that I have no interest in stirring up press interest in a “GO/Microsoft fight”. I appreciate your willingness to cooperate with us, and look forward to resolving the matter. Sincerely, [SIGNATURE] S. Jerrold Kaplan Chairman PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 718 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 718 Page 1] Microsoft Corporation [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE / TELEX / FAX][handwritten] Billg [Microsoft Logo] VIA AIRBORNE EXPRESS May 3, 1991 Mr. S. Jerrold Kaplan Chairman GO Corporation [ADDRESS] Dear Jerry: After our phone call and your letter to me last week, I decided to write this letter so that my view is clear. Microsoft has been very interested for a long time in handwriting recognition software using the pen as the primary interface. When Jeff Harbers and I met with you and Bob Carr on July 11, 1988 we discussed the fact that we were working with several companies on system software for handwriting machines. When Microsoft met with GO in May and June of 1989, GO knew that we were seriously considering putting handwriting recognition into Windows. During these meetings, you and Bob Carr tried to get Microsoft's commitment to develop handwriting applications for the GO operating system. You knew we'd be in the business, whether on GO's OS or on our own, and you were careful about what you showed us and told us about handwriting recognition and gestures. Specifically, Lloyd Frink saw no code at all and received no information about how you did handwriting recognition. He wasn't permitted to take any documentation, any software or the early version of the SDK out of your offices. Lloyd did see a couple of gestures that have been staples of the Associated Press editing guides for years. Microsoft received no information about GO's pen product, except what we read in the papers, from the time of those meeetings until your recent public demonstrations of PenPoint. What information we learned during our meetings was largely irrelevant since we saw nothing about handwriting recognition, which we cared a lot about, and a lot about GO's OS, which we cared not much about. [letterhead footer] Microsoft is an equal opportunity employer. [STAMPED] X 504373 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 718 Page2] Mr. S. Jerrold Kaplan May 3, 1991 Page 2 We have been clear at all stages of our discussions that we were interested in putting handwriting recognition and a pen interface in Windows. You hoped to convince us to rewrite our applications for your operating system. However, nothing that we learned from Go undermined our belief that Windows was the way to go. As a last attempt to convince GO to write its software for Windows or license it to Microsoft to put on Windows, we asked Robert Carr to come to Redmond and we disclosed a lot of confidential information about our plans for Windows. The upshot of that meeting was your offer to license GO's technology to Microsoft, but on terms we could not accept. Reluctantly we went our own way. As I said over the phone, if you have any problems after looking at our Pen Windows SDK and other materials, or if you think you need other materials, please call me and l will make the matter top priority, I am ready to sit down and discuss any of this, and any other concerns you might have. Very truly yours, MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Bill Gates [STAMPED] X 504374 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 733 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 733 p1 of 2] GO Corporation[ADDERSS / FAX / TELEPHONE] [STAMPED] RECEIVED MAY 15 1991 CORPORATE [handwritten] file --> billg. Cc: jeffr mikemap mikenal billn jonl May 13, 1991 Mr. William Gates Chairman of the Board & CEO MICROSOFT CORPORATION [ADDRESS] Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter of May 3 clarifying your views. However, I must take issue with your version of the events downplaying the significance of GO's disclosure of confidential information to Microsoft. When we initially discussed GO's work in July, 1988, contrary to your statement, there was no discussion that you were working with several companies on systems software for handwriting machines which use the pen as the primary interface. In fact, the concept as a whole appeared to be quite a surprise to you at that time. After our initial meeting in July 1988, you and executives in your applications division expressed a serious interest in considering writing applications for our system. It was represented to us that your applications division was separate from your systems software division, and that information obtained from us would not find its way into your system's software division and therefore would not be used to deveop competitive products. Based on these representations, we hosted some Microsoft employees, including Lloyd Frink, for extensive briefings about our designs, plans, and implementation, with the view toward having Microsoft's applications division develop applications programs for our system. We discussed at length the results of our research and investigations, our intended marketing approach, and what we had learned through prototyping and testing of different approaches. Lloyd had free access to our design documents, handwriting interfaces, gesture set, and engineers. [STAMPED] Gates DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 60 2/28/[20]02 [STAMPED] X 504369 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 733 p2 of 2] Letter to Mr. GatesMay 13, 1991 Page 2. If we had known that Lloyd might become a principal supervisor of Microsoft's development of a competing product, we would not have disclosed our trade secrets to him, much less provided him with an ofice in our headquarters and unsupervised access to our confidential information. The demonstrations of Pen Windows we have seen to date, quite frankly, cause us concern about use of the information we disclosed to Microsoft, Frink's involvement in the design of Pen Windows, and the apparent similarities between Pen Windows and PenPoint. I will get back to you with a more definitive analysis after we complete our review of your materials. Sincerely, [signed] Jerry S. Jerrold Kaplan Chairman PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 746 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 746 Page 1 of 5] >From nathanm Sun May 26 10:03:18 1991To: pradeeps Cc: billg bradsi cameronm gregs jeffr jonl karenh lloydfr marline makemap raleighr robg steveb Record-folder: C:NATHANMFOLDERSWSENT.FLD Subject: RE: PCs that aren't PCs Date: Mon Mar 16 11:31:28 PDT 1992 I agree with much of what you say. In fact, the part that you said I didn't understand is exactly what I would have expected you to say. The only differences that we have are rather subtle, but I think that they are important. Here are some specific comments: The assumption that the PenWin mkt is
the 'existing PC user' while GO's mkt is the 'new user' is wrong. (What
the hell is a 'new user' anyway? Presumably over the past 10 years,
we've gathered 50m 'new users'.) GO wants to position us that way -
Yes, that is my point! I think that we [are] in violent agreement. There are several quite different topics that seem that we potentially could discuss: - What your marketing position *is* - i.e. what people really perceive. This is what you tell them as filtered by what they believe and retain. - What your posture *should be* - i.e. the message you shouldbe saying. Note that this is usually a strong function of the audience, or market segment. - What the fundamental "lay of the land" is - i.e. the techincal [sic] and market *realities*. Note that these can be quite different than either what you say or what people perceive. Sometimes you can get away with saying things that are very untrue (like the misuse of the word "Open" in the UNIX community, or the old practice of calling dictatorships "The People's Democratic Republic of..."). The usual case however is that you need to make sure that what you are saying is in line with techincal [sic] realities. Go's message is very pure in that all three of these line up. They say that they are for people who are likely to only use a Pen based machine, and do so primarily in tasks which are not typical on desktop PCs (that is a good definition of a "new user" in this regard). PC industry people believe Go when they say this, because it is obvious that they can't run any PC industry apps - so it is clear that they want to be something else. Also, Go can make some credible claims to having technically optimized for this case. My comments about Pen Windows were primarily about the technical and market reality, and I think you interpreted them as statements about what your message should be. WinMail 1.21 lynnra Mon Mar 16 11:18:50 1992 Page: 109 [STAMPED] EXH 22 DATE 02/14/[20]02 WITNESS [signature] SUSAN ZIELE [STAMPED] MS 5024470 CONFIDENTIAL [Plaintiff's Exhibit 746 Page 2 of 5] The reality is that if you completely subtract the connection to Windows apps, Go is way ahead of us (in my opinion). That is not a message I would suggest you communicate, and I don't think that many people percieve that yet (fortunately) because you have done good work. The good news is that we don't have to subtract Windows out, and you can use the aura of Windows to help in the other markets. This is explained more below: we're in this business precisely because we have no intention of giving that market up. Better than 50% of pen system sales in the next couple of years are likely to come from fleet sales to people who are so-called 'new users'. We intend to win those sales. Yes, most of these will be sold direct; will have few apps on them, but will still lead to a critical mass of pen machines (and pen OS's). Once the socket gets out there it will attract ISVs. Those sockets must be PenWin sockets. I agree that it is dangerous to cede these sales to Go, and I had no intention of suggesting that you do this. Your goals, and your message should reflect the fact that you want to win there too. Even in the case of fleet sales, I believe that your ability to convince people that we have an advantage is directly or indirectly Windows. If you had to give a demo and sales pitch where you never once ran a normal Windows app, or otherwise used the imprima of Windows, you would be at best be on even ground with Go, and I don't think that would be much fun. So, to sum up on this, I was not misunderstanding your goal of doing well in that market, or your message which supports that goal. I just think that Windows is your ace in the hole, and that within the next 2 years 90% of your sales will be either directly be to Windows users, or to "new pen-centric users" (as defined above) who picked Pen Windows over Go directly or indirectly because of the connection to Windows (part of coroporate strategy, support from machine mfgr, FUD with going "against" Windows, expectation of future apps...). As an aside, I think that there is a big danger in your message becomming to diffuse if you tell everybody that you'll win against Go in all markets. Go has a very focussed position, and as much as possible you should use this againtst them by letting them position themselves into a corner. In particular, when it comes time to talk to ISVs, you really want to make the point that Go's intended market is NOT a good place to sell their apps. I think that the point you raise above about fleet sales eventually becoming sockets for apps may have some merit, but this is a terrible thing to say to ISVs. X think the best *message* to ISVs is that Go's market is IRELEVANT to them in turns of selling any maintstream PC app. Kany of the other points I made in my previous email also apply - the machines are priced such that PC industry people are a large part of the early market, PC OEMs are building the machines etc. A specific point - yes, Pens should be positioned as an integral part of the Windows soln (the PenWin SDK will be bundled with the 3.1 SDK), but it is an oversimplification to say that any good 3.1 app is a good pen app. I believe that you must MAKE this true as much as possible. People making Windows apps that ship in 92 should feel embarrased as hell if they don't work well with a pen. Note that this is ANY Windows app - I didn't say "Pen Windows ISVs". We've got to evangelise the pen stuff specifically - no Win developer is likely to build support for 'ink' (scribble objects), interaction with the recognizer, extended gesture support etc unless we raise the awareness of why pens are important. Yes, you must raise awareness, but ideally it should be in a Windows context. I would for there to be an ISV that says "yes we have a great Windows app, and later on we'll make a Pen Windows app". I'd rather have the guy thinking "we really have to fix our Windows app so that it works well with Pens, outline fonts and other new Windows features". Some apps will target Pen specifically, just as color paint programs target machines with color monitors, but the broad mainstream should cover, it all. We can get people to buy our OS only because the end-user sees solutions that he can't get elsewhere - thus forcing the OEM to support our OS. Building relationships with consumer OEMs is important as is building a lighter weight Windows versions for the PCs w/o kbds. But NEITHER is as fundamental as getting apps out there which meet those needs - even though they may be on machines sold by traditional-PC OEMs and on a overweight OS. The very existence of those apps will then drive the consumer OEMs to adopt the MS soln. The basic argument is that the proposition laid out in Nathan's email: "PMK = Consumer hardware + ? apps + consumer positioning" is a non-starter. You HAVE to build from your strength - existing PC's; get the apps built; get people using them, then grow the mktg broader through lowered price points on the hardware. And that's what our pen effort must do. There are many valid points in what you say, but there are some subtle distinctions which I believe are crucial. I believe that they could make the difference between success and failure in this area. What you have described is ONE way to approach the consumer market. It could be paraphrased as "PCs move down and take over consumer electronics". We start with PCs, on which we are already successful, get apps built which satisfy consumer needs, let them incubate in the PC industry until the machines are cheap enough, eventually "forcing" (your word) the consumer electronics companies to go with us. I would love it if this happened, but it would be negligent of us to RELY on this happening. We are presently investing in this direction, because it happens to be a direct extension of our PC business - i.e. this bet is already covered. Pen Windows is one great step in this direction and our Multimedia efforts are another one. I agree with you that we must build on strength, but this is more than one way to do this! We must hedge our bets. The consumer electronics companies will regard the scenario you describe as all out war. They are oriented around proprietary standards and have a different mentality than the PC industry. If we remain insular and focus just on "PCs will move down", then consumer companies will create alternatives. CD-I is exactly such a thing, but consider that the tip of the iceberg - they will create many more for PMK machines (and enhance CD-I a lot) . Remember that these guys buy movie studios and record companies just to feed their gadgets today. The amount of money that Philips has invested in CD-I titles and other infrastructure is staggering. They will make similar software investments for PWKs if they feel they have to, and the "PCs move down" scenario is so threatening to them that they will feel they have no choice. I would like to see them do this in partnership with us. I think that we should continue to press forward on "PCs move down" approach but IN ADDITION we should do a project with the following characteristics: - Work closely with, at least one major consumer electronics company from the very beginning, and learn to adapt to their culture and approaches (as much as is feasible). I think Sony would be be3t for a variety of political reasons in the consumer industry, but this is a huge topic unto itself. - It would be nice to have 2 projects with them in the PWK area. One would be a fairly near term thing (such as Sony Bookman?) , and another would be much more ambitious - which might be considered a prototype in the inital stages, but which we want to be a product. The reason is that near term stuff is important to get a foot in the door and establish a working relationship, but it is too limited in terms of the hardware (8088 character mode...) to be a the base of anything longer term. We heed to get in on this, but also leapfrog out to the point where our full gamut of software (Windows etc) is feasible. - We would try to draw on things which appeal to our partner. As an example, Sony is a MIPS architecture licensee, and really wants to get into chips. Suppose we had a project to make a lightweight portable Wia 32 implementation for a PWK. Sony could focus a project on making a super low cost MIPS system with custom chips, and perhaps even custom CPU. If we found a way to need a couple of special new instructions (say for power management...) and they could feel they were getting an edge on the world this way, so much the better. Another example would be to support some cool hardware that they had in the works - a new kind of storage (next generation mini-disk). We want to work our way into their strategies so that they rely on us in many ways. - Our "strength" in this case is our credibility in software, our position as a partner, and the connection to the PC industry. I believe that we can get such a project going on this basis. - Technically we want to tie in to the Windows world. This is what gives us the huge strategic win - we can draw on apps and other things being developed in the PC industry and our other initiatives (Pen, MMsys...). The various options mentioned in the previous mail (drop Dos etc.) still leave considerable overlap with Windows. - When I wrote "? apps" in the equation you quote, I didn't mean that we would want to run PC industry apps (although there are subsets, like Dos apps, that may not be relevant). The point is that the apps which will be compelling to PWK users are not part of the PC industry's current inventory. We need to get them developed. The consumer companies are more than willing to spend millions doing this (again, look at the CD-I investment) . We want this investment to be channeled into something that will also benefit the desktop - by being based on Win 32. I would love it if the PWK battle between consumer computers moving up and PCs moving down was fought with Windows on both sides. Our destiny is to be the Krupp Werks of the 1990s. I want us to be in a position such that we DON'T CARE if the PWK of the future is sold by Sony (and leverages connection to entertainment media), or Sharp (and is more of a calculator), or is sold by a communications equipment company (and leverages cellular telephone), or in fact is a PC that moved down and is sold by IBM, Compaq and Tandy. In ALL cases they should be running Microsoft software - in particular, some variant of Win 32. We have one of these avenues firmly in hand, but we are not far along in getting the consumer people to work with us. I think it is time to start cultivating that community. Nathan [Plaintiff's Exhibit 746 Page 3 of 5] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 746 Page 4 of 5] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 746 Page 5 of 5] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 809 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 809 Page 1 of 4] [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 43 4/18/[20]02[STAMPED] KAP0037 Microsoft Corporation [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE / TELEX / FAX] July 3, 1991 Mr. S. Jerrold Kaplan GO Corporation [ADDRESS] Dear Jerry: Thanks for your letter dated May 13. My heavy travel schedule has delayed this response. As to the July, 1988 meeting at GO, you and I have pretty different recollections. While I don't want to seem at all argumentative, I am confident of the substance of my recollection as set out in the early part of my letter to you dated May 3, and I invite you to consider some corroborating material. I am enclosing a copy of an email message I composed and sent on Thursday July 14, a few days after our meeting. Several points emerge: a) we at Microsoft had considered well before that visit a machine of the sort you were designing; b) I asked our Systems and OEM Vice Presidents to pursue selling Windows to GO; and c) I asked our VP for Applications to consider an applications strategy, albiet pessimistically. Also enclosed is a paragraph from my May 22, 1989 keynote address at the SPA conference, when I touted Windows-based pen systems under design in Japan. Regarding events after the July meeting, I stand by my description in my May 3 letter of discussions between our two companies, each having a preferred goal: Microsoft to license Windows to GO as the operating system for your system, and GO to persuade Microsoft to become an ISV of applications for the GO machine. Regarding Lloyd Frink's role, I can understand GO's confusion about his titular responsibilities. The fact is that I asked Mike Maples, our VP for Applications to pursue the handwriting recognition technology and he delegated it to Jeff Raikes who enlisted Lloyd. Lloyd believes he negotiated in good faith the mertis [sic] of GO licensing Windows for its operating system while entertaining GO's arguments why Microsoft should become a GO ISV and that he did not misappropriate any trade secrets in the course of his discussions with GO. [letterhead footer:] Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 809 Page 2 of 4] [STAMPED] KAP0038Mr. S. Jerrold Kaplan GO Corporation July 3, 1991 Page Two Jeff Raikes reports that he had a lengthy and constructive discussion with you and Bob Carr in mid-May about these issues. If there is any further information that we can provide, please let me know. Sincerely, [signed] William H. Gates Enclosures cc: William Campbell Robert Carr
John Dore Mike Maples Jeff Raikes Greg Slyngstad WHN:pf MiscWHG-Go [Plaintiff's Exhibit 809 Page 3 of 4] [STAMPED] KAP0039Jul 20 08:04 1988 MAIL Page 15 >From billg Thu Jul 14 16:42:49 1988 To: gregm jeffr joachimk jons mikemap steveb Subject: GO corporation Cc: charless jeffh tandyt Date: Thu Jul 14 16:42:45 1988 Jeff Harbers and I met with Jerry Kaplan and Lob Carr of GO corporation Monday afternoon. Basicly (sic) they are building a machine that Kay and I talked about building along time ago - a machine with no keyboard and no disk using-static memory. Its like an 80286 version of the model 20D with 2meg-8meg using a writing stylus with handwriting recognition forinput. According to Marquardt there are a few other people building things like this - in fact there was one discussed in the WSJ this week. Its [sic] notebook size. The LCD is 640x400 so about 55DPI (which I dont think is enough) They-are doing ALL their own system software - a protect mode OS for 286 using visual objects (like everyone!). Its [sic] multitasking. The interface metaphor is a set of named folders with tabs on the right hand side each containing any number of numbered pages and each page has on it [sic] just ink (writing) or rectangles that contain application sessions (which can be zoomed/unzoomed) All the old ideas like using gestures for various commands they have "rediscovered" They will announce in 1990 at $3k. Modem is optional. The[y] will bundle some drawing/wp/filing/notetaking/mail software but they want to get third party isv's including microsoft. We tried out their handwriting stuff and it was terrible. Its very possible to do this stuff correctly and maybe they will but they havent yet. ANALYSIS: This machine should be built as an open standard by a bunch of Japanese makers. The software layers should be more compatible with desktop-stuff. Kaplan isnt the best CEO. They have some OK ideas but I dont think this thing will be big. We do need to think about note taking and the fact that small machines can be used everywhere especially with this input approach but I dont think we should be an ISV for them. ACTION ITEMS: Gregm - Carr wants our debug format to do a remote debugger. If it is written up and easy to send then send it to him with a letter saying they will use it for developing on their-machine only. If it is hard then have someone call and say sorry. JoachimK/Steveb - we should be selling system software to people like this. He is fairly far along at this point. What would we sell him? Either stripped down PM or WINDOWS. WINDOWS is the best choice I think. Tell him to use extended memory. He wont like this but it will sure help him with applications developers. Who can take a pass at this with Carr? Mikemap - Another applications opportunity but unless we want something that fits on this machine for the desktop I doubt it makes sense. They do want to create connections between stuff on their machine and popular desktop stuff so we want to be friends with them even if they are not an ISV. They offered to come up and present their concepts to a larger group up here. I doubt that make[s] sense. I will talk about this class of machine in our saturday morning meeting. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 809 Page 3 of 4] great things about this package is the way it uses dynamic data exchange to enable you to use a spreadsheet to model your costs or model certain engineering figures, and in real time feed that data into the drawing so that if you change that drawing the data feeds back to the spreadsheet, if you change the spreadsheet it feeds back to the drawing. In fact it's one of the most graphical illustrations of the benefits of dynamic data exchange that I've ever seen.One of the ways that Windows will be used in 1990 that I hadn't even expected is that we have a number of manufacturers, all of them based in Japan, building machines where they take Windows and they put it into ROM and instead of putting the keyboard on the machine they simply put a touch-sensitive LCD plastic covering on the machine and so it looks almost exactly like an 8-1/2 by 11 notebook. In fact there's a number of companies working on exactly this design. By using the Windows software built in, and by having a handwriting driver that allows an unmodified application to receive the keystrokes as though they came in from the keyboard, we think that they will be able to tap into a wide base of software and also get people to do special modifications to their software to take advantage of the sorts of things that people want to do in an environment where you can carry the PC around. I think it's fair to say that keyboard machines will never find their way into meetings like this or to meetings inside your company, they also won't be carried around inside the office. And so there is a hugh [sic] area of use that relates to note-taking and communication and sales calls that only this stylus-based type PC can accommodate. There are no technical breakthroughs required for this machine - the idea of following the trace when you do handwriting and recognizing the character is actually not a difficult software feat. So this is not rocket science, this is not voice recognition or something that will take a long time to develop - it's something that you will see in 1990 and I think is one of the opportunities in the Windows environment for people who want to do specialized software. Well I should talk a tiny bit here about the OS/2 operating system, just to provide you an update about what's going on. It's fair to say that no operating environment ever succeeded solely because of technical strength, but people who create these things like to talk about their technical strength anyway so if you'll indulge me for one slide I'll talk about some of the things we are excited about that are built into the OS/2 system. First of all, this is true multitasking and true multitasking is different than what we have today on the Macintosh Multifinder or on Microsoft Windows. The reason it's different is that at any time an application can come in and get system resources and this is absolutely critical. If you want to receive electronic mail in the background, if you want to have good prints [page number] 8 [STAMPED] KAP0040 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 859 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 859 Page 1 of 4] [STAMPED] X 189615 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] Raikes DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 56 10/18/[20]01 [handwritten] file [then a single set of illegible initials, ticked off with a check mark] Microsoft Corporation [ADDRESS / TELEPHONE / TELEX / FAX] Microsoft Memo To: Bill Gates, Jeff Raikes, Steve Ballmer, Mike Maples, Brad Silverberg, Jim Allchin From: Greg Slyngstad Date: July 24, 1991 [transcription note: the following "Challenges to PenWin" is circled and annotated with a handwritten note which reads] OBU [or OBO] PCB Re: Challenges to Pen Win Cc: Pradeep Singh, Lloyd Frink, Aaron Getz, Marlin Eller This memo highlights some of the threats of PenPoint and warns that Go is making progress on many fronts and unless we take them seriously, Go may emerge with a majority of the Pen OS business. Now is the time to stop them, not after it is clear we are losing. I list several indications of Go's strength and suggest some items that we need to work on in order to weaken their position. I am more optimistic than this memo may indicate, but I am concerned that our strengths (wealth of Win apps and Win momentum) are not playing out as well as we would like. The majority of our resources (in the Windows area) are focused on a diferent battle. However, there are things that we should be doing that can help against both PenPoint and OS/2. Go Marketing Wins * The press continues to favor Go. We are making some progressbut the prevailing anti-Microsoft attitude and the cool new technology of PenPoint makes Go very appealing to the press. Even those editors that believe we will win, want to see Go succeed. * Go has a focused sales organization. Almost every major corporation we visit has already had a visit from Go. Many of these corporations complain about the complexity of Windows and are open to exploring an incompatible system. Go is very good at convincing them that PenPoint is amazingly easy to learn and use. State Farm said they would rather their technical MIS people had to put the effort into making the system work, rather than the end user. On our side, the Microsoft field sales and support force is reluctant to spend time on an OEM product (with a few notable exceptions). * ISV's claim they are doing their new Pen oriented software first on PenPoint (Lotus, Software Publishing, WordPerfect as well as many of the startups) At the recent Pen Conference in San Francisco, David Reed from Lotus said, "We would be stupid not to support Windows for Pens, but our real creative energy is going into Pen Point." They will support Pen Win but they downplay this and most ISVs are planning on doing simple mods to their Windows apps. * Most OEMs will make sure their system will run either OS. People we know are headed this direction: NCR, Toshiba, Zenith, Dell, Grid, Microslate, Wang and Tusk not to mention IBM being PenPoint only. Recent discussions with Boca on PenWin have cooled. I sense the high level anti-Windows sentiment is stopping the pen group from moving forward. * NCR is leaning towards PenPoint. They claim OS neutrality but their recent add [sic, "advertisement"?] highlights PenPoint and there are definite anti-Microsoft feelings in their pen marketing group. [Plaintiff's Exhibit 859 Page 2 of 4] [STAMPED] X189616[STAMPED] X 189616 CONFIDENTIAL Scalability. Go is pushing OEMs to build small form factor machines. We are claiming we will run on these systems as well. In theory Windows should be scalable to these small displays. Lloyd has begun exploring this and it is clear that it has never been tested and full of flaws. He has reported some of these to the Windows team, but I wonder how much effort will go into fixing the problems given the need to ship 3.1 (the program manager and file manager do not even use dialog units based on the system font so they do not scale at all, the system menus and min/max icons do not scale so you end up with an ugly title bar if you increase the system font size.) We have only scratched the surface at looking into this but it is clear we need to test this and be prepared to fix the problems. Silicon only storage. Go treats their storage space as one contiguous address space and will execute in place when running on a silicon storage (flash) system. Windows 2.1 will be ROMmable but it still requires all apps and much of Windows be duplicated during execution. Since silicon storage is required for highly durable systems and the price for this storage is so high, efficient use is an important benefit. IBM has told us they will never put a hard disk in a portable pen machine. Notebook User Interface. The Go shell is significantly easier to understand and use than the Windows program manager and file manager. Instant On. The Go system allows you to turn off the system and instantly return to where you left it when powered back up. Not clear if this works on hard disk based systems. Windows apps in general work poorly with the pen. Selection and command execution work well but with the exception of graphics entry apps (CAD, Paint, Draw) the standard input expected still comes form the keyboard. This means the user must suffer through character recognition. The best horizontal pen apps will rely heavily on ink in its native form. This applies to PIMs & notetakers, PenMail, handwritten annotations of documents, ink in your database, FAX annotations etc. This means we need to continue to get bandwidth from our ISVs and not let them think that adding handwriting edit controls is sufficient to be a good pen app. Portable. It is not clear how much work they need to do to bring PenPoint up on a non-Intel system. However, we heard that they offered to do this for Motorola and hear rumors of their working on a RISC based PC. Screen Rotation. They highlight their ability to do screen rotation so the notebook can be used in either portrait or landscape mode. We have a driver under development, but the assumptions of GDI regarding video memory make the portrait driver run very slowly. They support rotation during any session. We must restart Windows. PenPoint OO design allows for smaller apps. Unclear how true this is, but the OEMs, press and many ISVs buy it. Connectivity. PenPoint offers deferred I/O and autoconnect to a network. True 32 bit preemptive multitasking. Their modern OS design appeals to technical industry people. They push the fact that DOS is 10 years old. Possible Scenarios The worst case scenario is that Go ships on time, ahead of us. The system is fast and stable and PenPoint apps appear rapidly. The horizontal market for pen computers is very slow to develop and initial sales are primarily through vertical sales force. The larges group of initial users are the mobile workers and the Go incompatibilities are not enough to overcome the perceived ease of use, more focused sales effort and technical superiority of their solution. It turns out these users really don't need keyboards. We lose. A more likely scenario is that we ship first or around the same time. They have performance problems and their apps are slow to arrive (with a few exceptions) but the system as a whole is stable and delivers as promised. As with most new PC products, the first users end up being the standard early adopters -- [text continues on next page] Threats to Windows for Pens Microsoft Confidential 7/26/[19]91 page 2 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 859 Page 3 of 4] [STAMPED] X 189617 CONFIDENTIALtechnically adept people, with Windows familiarity. They will be split in their preferences. Thy appreciate the coolness of PenPoint but understand the benefits of sharing code across multiple platforms. They have desks and they want to use the same OS and apps at their desktop. However, like the early Mac users, some are willing to pay the price of a new OS. We win this market but Go gets a good piece of it and continues to win the technical comparisons. Go continues to focus on mobile workers and as this market develops (more slowly as a result of the long buying cycle and resistance to change of corporate accounts), they get the larger share (due to lack of focused sales effort on our part and IBM pushing PenPoint). As this plays out, the next generation of smaller/lighter Pen machines begin arriving and with Go's focus on scalability and portability, they exploit these machines more quickly and better than Pen Win. They may have the momentum. What we should be doing There are more things we should be doing to ensure that we win. I have broken them down into Win 3.1, WinNext (4.0?), and Management issues. Win 3.1 The Windows group in general has been cooperative but we are caught in the middle of their priorities and frequently can't get things done. There are a few reasonable things that can be done that relate to working well on small portable systems. Since portable systems sales are growing so rapidly, it seems a logical place to invenst in order to combat both OS/2 and PenPoint. - Scalability. The Win 3.1 group should buy into testing Windows scalability or at least fixing the bugs we report. Assume a small screen display and large system font (640x480 but 1/2 the size so the system font is around 50% larger). - Deliver Power Management. This is happening, but the Windows group is not planning on shipping anything so we are concerned that this will lose focus in the rush to ship 3.1 - Deliver ROM Windows. This appears under control, but know [sic, "no"] one seems to be addressing the issues relative to executing in place on a Flash system. - Reduce code size. Is there code that we carry around to run in all three modes that can be eliminated when running only in enhanced mode? Is anyone exploring other possible ways to reduce the size of Windows? - Power reduction. Windows is a power hog. Are we seriously looking at ways to reduce disk hits? WinNext We would love to see some of these things in 3.1 but it is even more important that 3.1 arrive on time so we can beat Go out the door. - Deferred I/O. We should be able to print without being connected. Ideally, we would have a general purpose output spooling standard. The Pen group can share ownership in getting this defined, but we ned someone in the Win group to work with. - New Shell. This is coming. Will it be as simple as Go's? Should we explore doing a simpler version for the Pen? - Instant On. Make it possible to save the state of Windows and the apps so that they can be restored quickly to their previous state. Some ideas were explored for Win 3.1, but there were enough complexities that the idea was killed. - Quick net connect. We need to be able to quickly configure the system to attach to a network. I shouldn't have to deal with errors when I boot disconnected and I should be able to connect without rebooting. [page footer] Threats to Windows for Pens Microsoft Confidential 7/26/[19]91 page 3 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 859 Page 4 of 4 ] [STAMPED] X 189618 CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] X189618 Size. We can't keep getting bigger. Silicon only storage systems will prevail on pen machines and the forecasts for reduction in price are not rosy. What can we do to optimize for a small Flash based system? - Portability. I hear that NT requires 8MB. This is not suitable for a pen machine. We need to investigate what solutions there may be that provide pen support on small non-Intel PCs. - Screen Rotation. We should allow dynamic screen rotation and enhance GDI to increase performance in portrait mode on VGA displays. Management - Focus from the field. We will need clear support from our field sales organization (through some incentive?) or if that is not feasible, beef up the Pen marketing group (FY 92 has 5 people) to enable our competing more effectively in the direct sales accounts. Many organizations are currently evaluating the competing technolgies and some are starting their prototype development effors. We will be battling the IBM sales force and the Go sales force. Go's existence depends on the success of PenPoint. The Microsoft sales force has little reason to care about Windows for Pens. - Support. We have discussed offering support to Pen Win end users but the current plan is to offer support only through the OEM. Can we offer free end user support? - Does it make sense for us to invest more in marketing? Can we raise the ante so Go is forced to spend more of their resources on marketing/selling. Right now, it appears Go is spending more than we are for pen specific marketing. This is based on their strong presence in all pen events, their wealth of marketing collateral and their ability to call on so many corporate customers. They can't keep this up. Assuming this market develops quickly, it will be at least a couple more years before they can be profitable. Based on $50 per unith, they need 200,000 units to do $10mil (ignoring possible apps revenue). Our proposed marketing budget was cut substantially in FY 92 planning. Some ideas: - A pen oriented road show that makes it attractive for the early OEMs to participate. - Figure out how to sell the OEMs sales force on PenWin. We are already offering a lot of training, but maybe we should consider incentives for their sales force or at least provide collateral that makes it easier for them to sell Pen Win. - Create attractive marketing programs that help our ISVs. Free catalog of apps, create a forum for ISVs to participate (the road show?). - I am sure others can come up with even better ideas. Summary Go has a technically superior solution (if they deliver as promised), they have been sucessful in convincing a lot of people that the pen requires all new apps and that Windows is too complex and inappropriate for small form factor machines. The battle is no longer for OEMs, although we are trying to find ways to stop them, most will offer both solutions. The battle will be at the ISV and corporate/user level. For ISVs we have succeeded in getting them signed up, but the small ones prefer the lack of established competition in the PenPoint market and the big ISVs do not want us to succeed. We are not well positioned to sell or support an OEM product to end users without good support from our OEMs. We believe we have a great product. The pen user interface under Windows is competitive with Go. We think our recognition will be better than theirs. We will have more apps. But for broader issues such as simplicity, size and applicability for clipboards, we are weaker. We need to put more emphasis on portability/scalability and address the marketing/sales issues or we risk leting Go win this battle. [document footer] Threats to WIndows for Pens Microsoft Confidential 7/26/[19]91 page 4 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1002 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1002 p. 1 of 1] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL>From toshim Thu Oct 3 05:19:55 1991 To: richardf Subject: FJ and Poqet ...Pen Cc: toshim Date: Thu Oct 3 21:13:29 1991 Want to contact and ask Yonekawa san straightly. FJ (Japan) seems to not only look into Pen Point but have plan to make the PC in parallel with Win for Pen. Thank you, Toshi ------------ >From richardf Thu Oct 3 14:38:10 1991 To: toshim Subject: We have Date: Wed Oct 2 22:35:40 1991 >rumore [sic, "rumor"?] that Poquet will license Go fpor [sic, "for"?] new systems. If this is their plan to offer compettive [sic] offering we will not be interested to give Poqet any of theri [sic, 'their'?] prepaids..1.over to FJ license. Nor does it make me very interested in be richardf >From jeffr Wed Oct 2 09:18:52 1991 To: joachimk richardf Subject: RE: Poqet Computer Cc: pradeps Date: Wed Oct 2 09:18:23 1991 My source is a consultant to them, but please don't mention that to anyone at Poqet since it would be a problem for the consultant. Thx. ---------------- >From joachimk Wed Oct 2 09:12:54 1991 To: jeffr richardf Cc: pradeeps Subject: RE: Poqet Computer Date: Wed Oct 02 08:49:48 PDT 1991 They are part of Fujuitsi, and have huge prepaids. i hope they understand, no mercy is an option for us. Talk to FURAKAWA in J Richard >From richardf Tue Oct 1 23:36:35
1991
To: jeffr joachimk Cc: pradeeps Subject: Poqet Computer Date: Tue Oct 1 23:36:32 1991 Thi[s] is the first i have heard if tgus [sic "of this"] this I asked stevemc about this today, he is with me here in tokyo. he has not heard anything of this either,steve will look into tit [sic], seems like we woudl [sic] have heard about it. who is your source ? richardf From jeffr Tue Oct 1 22:54:21 1991
To: joachimk richardf Subject: Poqet Computer Cc: pradeeps Date: Tue Oct 1 22:53:43 1991 Who is the account manager? I'm told that they have decided to go with PenPoint for a new pen computer. I may be meeting with the CEO next monday. Thx. Jeff [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION 48 4/19/[20]02 [STAMPED] MS 5003997 CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1522 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 1 of 14] [This appears to be the title page of a manual, or perhaps a sales document or advertising brochure.] [late-1980's looking computer logo emblazened "Compaq"] Compaq PDA Operating System Selection Portable and Software Marketing PC Division Compaq Confidential Need to Know [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 008073 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 2 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 008074 Overview
Compaq Confidential [Page Number] 2 1/13/[19]93 (Pda.ppt) [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 3 of 14] [The exhibit page is a powerpoint slide, showing a Gant chart/timeline arrow from left to right across the width of the page. These arrows are indicated in the transcript using the string - - - >".] PROCESS FOR LAUNCHING PDA BUSINESS. [A legend in the upper corner of the chart makes a reference to the right hand half of this table being the subject of] Today's focus
cqm002jan156.rjm [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 4 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008076 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND FUTURE MILESTONES
[The list of dates below occurs in a giant line-drawing of a "milestone," like the mile markers in the Parker Brothers card game "Mille Bournes" or like the rounded-off-top shape of the tombstones outside English churches such as that in Stratford-upon-Avon.] November 10 -- McKinsey presentation to Eckhard and Division Management November 16 Comdex-- Meetings with GO and Microsoft to share general plan to select O/S vendor November 13- FAX to Microsoft and GO describing details of O/S selection process and proposal topics to be covered December 3, 9- Microsoft and GO meetings in Houston to review topics and timeline for closure December 10-Chase Definition Tiger Team Kickoff December 28- Microsoft proposal received December 31- GO final proposal received January 4- Compaq proposal review meeting January 5, 6- GO and Microsoft presentations at Compaq January 7- Compaq proposal review meeting, recommendation January 8- Recommendation review March- Completion date for Chase Definition Tiger Team cqm002jan157.rjm [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 5 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008077 Recommended OS Vendor
1/12/[19]93 (Pda.ppt) [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 6 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008064 [Star Trek "Starfleet" logo clip art] Potential Reactions to GO PDA Decision
Compaq Confidential Slide 6 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 7 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 008079 ["computer terminal" clip art] Potential for Market LeadershipThe potential for Compaq to take a position of market leadership with GO far exceeds oppotunities with MicrosoftA. GO would probide Compaq with
significantly greater
sustained differentiation potential that would translate into
greater market share and higher margines
B. With sufficient Compaq commitment, a GO/Compaq relationship would provide greater product functionality to the customer resulting in faster market adoption and greater market share C. Compaq could generate significantly potentially greater non-hardware business with GO than with Microsoft D. Finally, Compaq's ability to work better with GO on a daily basis should help Compaq achieve its goals more quickly and effectively Compaq Confidential [page number] 7 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 8 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008080 ["computer terminal" clip art] Risks are AcceptableRisks associated with a non-Microsoft decision while significant can be mitigated and should be more than compensated by the potential benefitsA. Market acceptance of a GO/Compaq combination although less certain than Microsoft acceptance, could be ensured as a result of a number of factors
B. Although a GO decision might negatively impact Compaq's relationship with Microsoft in other areas, long term cost to Compaq should not be prohibitive
D. Additional resources (investment and unit cost) are likely to be higher with GO but potential benefits from higher revenues and gross margins should outweigh these costs E. Although Microsoft could compete against Compaq/GO with other vendors (e.g. HP, AST, DEC, Dell) Compaq's greater product functionality and sustained differentiation should win in the long run F. GO has enough financial backing to survive for the next 2-3 years and with Compaq support should become self-sufficient by 1994 G. Finally, a GO decision provides a "fall-back" option as long as X86 is the chosen microprocessor, while a Microsoft decision eliminates any near term options with GO 1/13/[19]93 (Pda.ppt) Compaq Confidential [page number] 8 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 9 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008081 ["computer terminal" clip art] Criteria Evaluation for PDA O/S Providers
1/13/[19]93 (Pda.ppt) Compaq Confidential [page number] 9 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 10 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 008082 Compaq Confidential
Preliminary
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 11 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 008083 EVALUATION OF RISK/RETURN TRADEOFF [The exhibit page shows the upper right hand quadrant of a two-dimensional graph. The horizontal axis is labelled RISK, and runs from Low to High. The vertical axis is not labelled RETURN, but it is a safe assumption given the context. The vertical axis also runs from Low to High.] [The area of the graph in the upper left hand corner (high return, low risk) is labelled "Attractive." ] [The area of the graph in the lower right hand corner (high risk, low return) is labelled "Unattractive."] [A dotted line runs vertically across the full height of the graph about 40% of the way from low to high risk. Along the horizontal, or "Risk" axis, this rectangular area from zero risk to 40% risk is bracketed with the legend "Compaq typical operating zone." (i.e., Compaq operates well below the average risk, whatever the rate of return.)] [A solid line runs diagonally from the origin upward and to the right at 45 degrees along the locus where RISK = RETURN. The solid line is labelled "Normal return." ] [There is a big black dot about 25% of the way up from the origin on this solid "Normal return" diagonal, as described above, the set of points on the graph where risk and return are equal. The dot is labelled "Microsoft today" which presumably means early 1993. There is an arrow leading straight vertically downward from this dot, pointing to another dot, labelled 1996. Presumably this means that in three years, Compaq predicts Microsoft will have a lowered return, at the same risk.] cqm002jan107.rjm [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 12 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008084 ["computer terminal" clip art] Outstanding Issues
Generate application support
Deliver on product vision
[Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 13 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008085 ["computer terminal" clip art] Compaq Commitment
Compaq Confidential [page number] 11 [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1522 Page 14 of 14] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation[STAMPED] COMPAQ 008086 ["computer terminal" clip art] Summary
Compaq Confidential 12 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3174 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 3174 Page 1 of 2] [STAMPED] KAP0011[The page is an illustration of a screenshot of a PDA-style user interface.] [The user interface appears as if it were a tabbed user interface window.] ["Tabs" along the right hand side of the user interface are labelled, from top to bottom:] Contents Current Products Proposed New Products Sales Customers New Bottle Design [There is an icon bar along the bottom of the user interface, with icons labelled, from left to right] Help Preferences Tools Stationery Disks Keyboard Installer In Out [The user interface has a title bar, which reads:] Notebook Contents (1) [The user interface has a menu bar, which reads, from left to right] Document Edit Create [illegible] Show Sort [On the menu bar of the user interface, the Create option has been selected, and a small popup or context window appears, with these options from top to bottom.] Business Memo MiniText [a horizontal separator bar] Section [The main content pane of the user interface is a tree-structured indented list interface, with a Name and Page for each element. The contents of the tree-structured list interface are, from top to bottom, giving Name and Page number (these are separated by a long ellipsis.......) :] Current Prod[hidden by context menu] 2 Inventory 3
Proposed New Products 5Standard Order Form 4 New Product Ideas 6
Sales 9Capers 7 Chili Mixes 8 Sales by Region 10
Customers 12New Hires 11 Chain Stores 13
New Bottle Design 15Compaints to Action 14 Salsa/Condiments 16
Bottle Design Sketch 19Package Design Letter 17 Proposed New Design (3/2/91) 18 Revised Bottle FAX 20 CONTRACT 21 New Product Draft 22 [The caption for the entire illustration is:] PenPoint - Table of Contents [Plaintiff's Exhibit 3174 Page 2 of 2] [The page is an illustration of a screenshot of a Microsoft Windows 3.1 style user interface. The caption for the entire illustration reads:] Microsoft - Notebook Applet [The title bar of the application reads: ] NoteBook Page 1 [Below the title bar, the user interface has a menu bar. The menu selections are: ] Page Edit Go Format Help [Below the menu bar, the user interface has a toolbar. The toolbar buttons include a selection tool arrow; a row of four buttons whose function is hard to make out (although the first one seems to be depressed, radio-button style, and another one has a squiggle which may suggest handwriting recognition); a button with an icon of a blank document; a group of two buttons, the first of which looks like an SLR camera, and the second of which looks like a file folder; a set of three navigation arrows (back, previous, next?); a pair of text style buttons for Bold and Italic type, and three horizontal text alignment buttons (left, centered, and right.) Table Of Contents [A two column table follows, with titles and page numbers: in this transcript, colons have been used to indicate column separation.] XYZ Co. Mtg: 2 Ideas for Project MoonShot: 3 Scribe Co. Proposal: 4 Scribe Mtg Notes: 5 TechTalk Comments: 6 Sketches: 7 OEM Proposal: 8 Marketing Plan: 9 Page xxx: 10 Page yyy: 11 Page zzz: 12 February 1991: 19 Index: 48 [at the bottom of the user interface is a horizontal row of buttons similar in style to a tabbed dialog. The selections are:] Table of Contents Index Rolodex Calendar To Do Expenses Customers Ideas Personal Exhibits published to Court Web Site on Mar 25, 2004 (Incomplete) Last Revised 4/29/2004 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1520 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 1520 Page 1 of 1] [STAMPED] Kaplan DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 54 4/19/[20]02 [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Orders in Coordinated Proceedings Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (S.F. Super. Ct.) and In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation [STAMPED] COMPAQ 007881 Microsoft Corporation [ADDRESS] [TEL] [TELEX] [FAX] [LOGO] January 13, 1993 Mr. Eckhard Pfeiffer President and Chief Executive Officer Compaq Computer Corporation [ADDRESS] Dear Eckhard; Bill and I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and the Compaq senior management team this Friday. In advance of this meeting, I want to express our apologies if you got the wrong impression regarding our sincere desire to partner with Compaq due to the tone of our meeting in Houston last week. During our meeting on Friday we hope to accomplish the following: 1. Discuss our desire to improve our
relationship in ways that benefit both companies' needs and positions
both of us strongly for long-term success. This discussion should
include how to provide the industry's best solutions to our mutual
customers in the areas of Plug and Play, Chicago and client networking.
Eckhard, I appreciate you scheduling time for us on Friday and
personally believe we can reach agreement on the key issues to allow us
to further develop our mutually rewarding relationship.2. Put the history of our relationship in perspective. This should include a discussion of how we have helped each other in the past when it came to product development, exchanging information and promoting our relationship with key customers. We would like to fundamentally analyze where and why the relationship has broken down and how we can avoid this in the future. We want to work closer than ever before so that together, we can look even better and promote each others [sic] products in front of our mutual customers. We hope that these improvements in the relationship will be supported at the highest levels of management in both our companies and that the spirit of cooperation will be a top-down commitment. 3. Further discuss a "Strategic Partnership" Agreement. Sincerely [signature of Joachim Kempin] Joachim Kempin Vice President OEM Sales cc: Bill Gates Doug Johns Gary Stimac Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer [END OF Mar 25, 2004 TRANSCRIPT] Gordon et. al. v. Microsoft Exhibits Published to Web April 01, 2004 Not Complete Last Revised 4/25/2004 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2348 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 2348 p. 1 of 2 Gordon v. Microsoft [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2348[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 278 From: Bill Gates [ITG/OXYGEN/billg] Sent: Friday, July 07, 1995 9:43 AM To: Brad Silverberg; Carl Stock (carts); Paul Maritz (paulma) Cc: Richard Tong; Craig Mundie (craigmu); Jim Allchin (jimall); John Ludwidg (johnlu); Jonathan Lazaurus (jonl); Laura Jennings (laural); Roger Heinen (rogerh) Subject: FW: Our dinner I spent 3 hours in San Jose Wednesday night having dinner with Andy Grove. Fundamentally Intel and Microsoft have not been doing a very good job of working with each other in most areas. There are a few exceptions like some NT related marketing or Plug and Play or TAPI. I started out by explaining to Andy that for us Windows 95 is job #1. I talked about how we spend over $500M taking calls from end users and use that data to drive our development. I explained how successful we expect Windows 95 to be. I went through how serious we are about testing software. The main problem between us right now is NSP. We are trying to convince them to basically not ship NSP. Andy said he did feel bad about a few things. First he felt bad that the software was focused on Windows 3.1 and not Windows 95 or NT. He says that was a mistake. Second he feels like the bad feelings between all the software groups at Intel and Microsoft makes them reluctant to work with us and even makes them hide what they are doing since they think we will crush it. We both agreed we have to start on attitudes and try and get communication going. Andy thinks his IAL people are smart and hard working and he won’t believe there isn’t some way for us to work to get a benefit from what they do. On the other hand intel feels we are virtually impossible to work with. They feel like if they offered something to use free we would say it is too expensive - they still have bad feelings over being called up and told we were doing Picturetel and paying for it when they feel like they offered to do anything to work together. I went thru the DCI episode and how that was a step backwards. I went through the problems we have with Intellectual property issues. I told Andy that I think he should cut down the number of software people that Intel has. I got the feeling he doesn’t plan on doing that. Intel has software in 2 groups - the Frank Gill platform group and the Craig Kinnie IAL group. The Kinnie group is a little over 600 people. Andy says that 200 of the IAL people are the compiler type people who work for Wirt. Andy feels like we asked them to have these people to do hard core compiler tuning to compete with MIPS and he thinks they are complimentary to our work. I didn’t disagree since I think there is some kind of relationship with Roger’s group that works. He says 200 of the people are doing communications related work like NSP. I wasn’t clear what the other 200 are doing. Under Gill there is a communications group run by Gelsinger, a networking group run by Mertz and an Internet group [sic] was just started with 100 people run by Mcgeady. Since Intel is just getting started on Internet, [sic] Andy and I agreed that that is an area we should try and have a very complimentary relationship. We agreed that there should be a high level meeting with Gill to get this kicked off - Paul or Jim Allchin will have to get involved in this. I tried explaining to Andy that our Internet strategy needed to involved getting specific code (in our case) and x86 instructions (in his case) on the Internet. I told Andy that he shouldn’t be concerned about software not eating up his cycles. I said that MPEG2, object orientation, social interface, 3-d realistic rendering, natural language and speech were all things we are making great progress on that will be popular and use lots of cycles. I said they should stop resisting MPEG2 and they should stop fighting with Rockwell over NSP. I said we are doing amazing graphics work because we have hired the best people in that area. Andy asked if NSP doesn’t do some interesting things that we don’t handle. I said we hadn’t even seen all of what is sometimes called NSP but that the audio related stuff did very little of value. Andy said Intel will not “pay” people to ship NSP by using marketing dollars and they won’t force it onto intel motherboards. He said he is the one who asked them to get a game show off NSP and he said retailers and others he has show the game to have “gasped”. Although Andy is super smart in software related areas and in some aspects of the PC market it is amazing what he doesn’t know. Andy is going to keep his 600 people and he wants us to give them something to do that is constructive. In a spirit of openness he asked who besides Paul was very calm and open minded about technical work with Intel. I wasn’t sure who to say but I mentioned John Ludwig as someone who I totally trusted to let me know if Intel was offering to do things that were constructive or destructive. Andy said he had heard good things about John. One point I [sic] kept pushing to Andy is that we are the software company here and we will not have any kind of equal relationship with Intel on software. It is in his interest to have us making the hard decisions and doing world class industrial strength work. I kept asking how he would feel if we showed [sic] up with a bunch of microcode to throw into the P6 at the last minute. I said equality cannot be the basis of how we work together on software. Andy understood this but he said that Intel has to push the “platform” forward and they see things we weren’t doing. I said we have to discuss those in advance because their “rabbit” approaches are just destructive. I said I thought it was humorous that it took his 600 people to alienate us so much and cause such poor communication that no one seemed to be talking about how poorly the P6 runs Windows 95 applications. Andy said a second step P6 would run 16 bit operations better – however when he checked on [STAMPED] MS98 0169009 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1092297 [STAMPED & HAND WRITTEN] [UNINTELLIGIBLE] A5 03/12/02 [ININTELLIGABLE] Stork Plaintiff's Exhibit 2348 p. 2 of 2 Gordon v. Microsoft page 2that Thursday he found out that the P6 second step will still not look good on Windows 95. On chip relationships Andy asked why we [sic] were being slow to close the P7 framework. I said we were being slow because: a) they didn’t want to use the corporate NDA which simply said they would never sue us over software b) they didn’t want to use the P6 framework and c) they had been super slow getting a proposal to us and d) we were distracted by the [sic] NSP crisis - making sure no one ships that pile of problems. I promised we would get back to them within 10 days on their proposal but that if it would expose us to 338 type garbage we weren’t going to be able to do anything with it. Andy said he recently decided to hire 1000 extra engineers so they can do parallel design work on pure x86 chips and P7 type chips with 2 teams each [sic] for leapfrog development. They like the P7 but they want to be hardcore about both approaches. On marketing I said it was awful they weren’t helping us in education or with Windows 95. Andy said he is giving a speech at Sun Valley and to a cable and TV event (CTAM?) and at Siggraph and he needs support from us to do his softimage demo and he feels he isn’t getting what he wants. Laura - please call Andy’s office and find out how we can help there. This is urgent. Andy said he wants to focus on solving the software development relationship before we spend our time trying to solve the marketing relationship. He agreed Dennis Carter is stubborn. The one area they want to work together and I agree is to pair NT and P6 as a major phenomena to change computing. Dave House is involved in this. Dave feels we haven’t taken full advantage of his willingness to work with us, Rich Tong should form a strong relationship with Dave and really push it to get as much as we can out of it. Andy and I talked about their relationship with Compaq and everyone’s fear that Intel is going to take over everything by making all the boards and not letting anyone add value. Andy thinks these fears are overblown. I personally think we need to try and construct a new approach with Intel where they take on some of the hard problems like speech with us. I think we should figure out some way for Intel to help make Windows 97 more P6 friendly. I think we should get them involved in NT performance. I believe we will see somewhat less pressure form Intel to ship NSP broadly this year but they want to ship in h1 96. It will take a major effort for us to convince them to back off from this. Andy wants me to talk to him more regularly so I am going to get involved more deeply to find ways for us to work together. I see Andy again next week in Sun Valley and so I can talk about specific problems or opportunities with him then. I am asking people to have a positive open minded view of how we can leverage Intel’s work. From: Andy Grove [SMTP: Andy_Grove@[INTEL EMAIL ADDRESS]] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 1995 12:10 PM To: billg Subject: Our dinner Bill, Thank you very much for taking the initiative and the trouble to come down and have dinner with me. I am very happy to have had the chance of a relaxed and in depth discussion with you - in fact, I slept fitfully after that, sort of continuing the dialogue in my sleep. Of course, you had it worse, having to fly home… This morning I talked with Ron Whittier and Carl Everett about some of the things we discussed. Ron will follow up modifying the Internet sessions to include Frank Gill, and of course will pursue the NSP saga with Paul. Carl is meeting with Carl Stork this Friday. I hope they can energize our work on the P6. On that subject, Carl (Everett) was unhappy with me telling you that it’s OK to leave the 16 bit code in Win 95. It seems I was overly optimistic on the improvements the next version of the P6 will bring. So, let me retract this comment - and pls. Pass on to Carl Stork that we need all the 32 bit support in Win 95 that we can get. Again, many thanks for your visit. I hope the cassette tape you were presented with during dinner will turn out to be a worthy investment for you … :-) Regards, Andy [STAMPED] MS98 0169010 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1092298 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2374 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 2374 page 1 of 4 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2374[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT [UNINTELLIGIBLE] [INTEL LOGO, DROPPED E STYLE] INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
1. Processors/OSs
2. Internet
3. Closure of Afternoon Meeting
each other. The most important conclusions:
Plaintiff's Exhibit 2374 page 4 of 4 4. Start treating each other with
more
respect, i.e. like a valued
customer. Also, cut out the non-value added aspect of competing to lead
the industry.
Kinnie to review the Win ’97 plan for specific holes (and more
generally), and review with Gates directly. It was suggested this be a
written review with Face-to-Face delivery. (AR: Kinnie)Specific AR
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2418 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 2418 Page 1 of 1 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2418[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 281 From: Bill Gates Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 1995 11:19 AM To: Brad Silverberg; Carl Stork (carst); Jim Allchin (jimall); Paul Maritz (paulma) Cc: Bernard Vergnes (bernardv); Craig Mundie (craigmu); David Cole (davidcol); Jeff Raikes (jeffr); Joachim Kampin (joachimk); John Ludwig (johnlu); Jonathan Lazarus (jonl); Nathan Myhrvold (nathanm); Paul Osborne (Paulo); Pete Higgins (peteh); Rich Rashid (rashid); Richard [UNINTELLIGIBLE] (richta); Steve Balmer (steveb) Subject: Intel Grove - some opportunities to work together! 1. MMX! (bradsi, craigmu, carts) Intel has instruction set extensions to allow for higher speed in multimedia operations called MMX. All Pentiums coming out after summer 95 (P55C) and all Pentium Pros coming out after Fall 96 will include these instructions. Intel thinks they will have 200mhz Pentium Pros in 96, Intel has a plan to fix the 16bit performance of Pentium Pro but not until sometime in 1997. Intel has decided to make the MMX instructions available to the people who do x86 clones. Intel is expecting support from Microsoft as it goes public with these instructions in February 96. I am assigning Brad to prioritize more discussions with Intel about MMX – where can we use these improvements? For example: we should study Intels MPEG2 software using MMX and understand if software only video conferencing becomes realistic. Even though MMX isn’t perfect in its first release we need to support Intel on this one and help them evolve it. If we really don’t like it we need to be very articulate NOW. Our multimedia group in PSD and Craig’s video group under Jay Torborg need to take a hard look. It is past the point of major change for Intel. With Intel’s share I believe the best thing for us is to push everyone to adopt MMX even though the alternative may be technically superior. Intel would like elements of Nashville to visibly support MMX even if its mainly a marketing thing. If MMX enables video we should consider how our content and applications should use it. 2. NT/Pentium Pro (steveb, jimall, paulma, craigmu, jon l) Intel wants to work with us on marketing the NT/Pentium Pro combination. Intel has an architectural sales force that calls on large accounts. They are willing as part of a cooperative arrangement to have this group focus on promoting NTS on Pentium Pro servers and NTW on Pentium Pro desktops. Grove thinks we could really help each other on this. We would both still have modest activities where we are processor independent and they are OS independent but they are willing to have almost all of their message focus on the combination of our products. I think this is the first time where we can really leverage Intel’s marketing investment to help a Microsoft product. We might even be able to get Intel to help us focus on tough accounts like National Security Administration or other SUN accounts. We might be able to get Intel to help us focus on Publishing and Higher Education. Under the new organization Intel has 2 relevant groups – Dave House for servers and Carl Everrett for Desktop. Grove wants to increase the bandwidth between BSD and these groups. Grove wants to know personally things that hold us back for working closely with these groups to deliver a strong message. If we want help on tuning, benchmarking, working with particular ISV’s or customers Grove thinks Intel can be supportive. Intel is actually doing 2 launches for the Pentium Pro – one by each of these groups. Intel as a customer has decided to skip Windows 95! They have a roll out plan to go straight to Windows NT. Grove says they put a lot of time into thinking about this. They don’t want to go public on it yet. I am actually surprised personally at the number of corporations looking at going straight to NT. 3. Real time Communications (paulma, craigmu, bradsl, jonlu) Paul – Intel feels we have all the OEMs on hold with our NSP chill. For example they feel HP is unwilling to do anything relative to MMX exploitation or the new audio software Intel is doing using Windows 95 unless we say its ok. This is good news because it means OEMs are listening to us. Andy believes Intel is living up to its part of the NSP bargain and that we should let OEMs know that some of the new software work Intel is doing is Ok. If Intel is not sticking totally to its part of the deal let me know. Andy knows you are down seeing Albert Yu on October 2[UNINTELLIGABLE]. He will grab a short meeting with you. He think Intel still has a lot of strength in “real time communication” and that combining this with the great strength he fears we have developed in graphics/video is the key to getting interactive applications on the Internet to require more than a simple terminal. He wants us to recognize that despite problems in the past combining our strengths here makes sense. He says the key groups involved here now work for Gill. He is willing to lay out everything they are doing. He understands telling us at the last minute does not work. [STAMPED] MS98 0169058 CONFIDENTIAL [STAMPED] MS-PCA 101686 [STAMPED] EXH. K[OR X]8 DATE 03/12/02 WITNESS STORK SUSAN ZIELS Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 - Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 1 of 8 [STAMPED] Government Exhibit 920[STAMPED] DT EVOL, SLIDE 1 DC 75 [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1020245 [STAMPED] MS CID 00208 Intel Confidential [The exhibit is a Powerpoint-style presentation with a background logo that says] ADL ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT LAB INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Destop Platform Goals/ Strategies
Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 2 of 8 [Still present is the background logo that says] ADL ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT LAB INTEL CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] MS CID 00209 Inter Confidential [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1020246 NSP Reference Platform [Beneath and to the left appears a down-pointing arrow-box with the logo of a CD and an illegible word written in a clip art starburst shape over the upper right hand corner of the arrow itself. Within the arrow-box are written the following: Open Design Guide Industry Work Groups SDKs DDKs [To the right of the arrow are the following:]
[Here follows a box containing a picture of a plain seesaw-looking balance that weighs on the left two hard disks and a pentium processor logo equally with (on the right) a square with the words, ' Signal Processing H/W" in a square with multiple squares indicated behind it of equal size. The letters "IHVs" are in the upper left hand corner of this box.] [STAMPED] DT EVOL, Slide 2 DC '95 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 3 of 7 [Still present is the background logo that says] ADL ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT LAB INTEL CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] MS CID 00210 [and barely decipherable the words:] Inter Confidential [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1020247 Intel- MS Platform Engagement Summary
Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 4 of 7 [Still present is the background logo that says] ADL ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT LAB INTEL CONFIDENTIAL[STAMPED] MS CID 00211 Inter Confidential [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1020248 Intel - MS Platform Engagement What joint development would look like
-Define joint development plan for MS support of Native interfaces in future Win '9x and Win NT. - Define Intel support of Direct Audio interfaces on Native Audio.
- Support of Indeo V4 in future Win '9x and Win NT releases.
- MS to port RM onto 3DR libraries. - MS to freeze 3D-DDI spec. - Intel to evangelize 3D-DDI interface for graphic drivers.
- Joint development and evolution of APM spec.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 5 of 7 [EXACT REPLICA OF PAGE 2]Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 6 of 7 [EXACT REPLICA OF PAGE 3]Plaintiff's Exhibit 3667 Page 7 of 7 [EXACT REPLICA OF PAGE 4]PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4410 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4410 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4410[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 283 [INTEL LOGO, DROPPED E STYLE] Internal Correspondence -Intel Conf To:
List
Date: 8 November 1995
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4410 p. 2 of 2 [PAGE 2]Focus Areas to Advance the Platform
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4411 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] [Plaintiff's Exhibit 4411 Page 1 of 2] [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4411[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 563 From: Gerald S Holzhammer [Intel email address] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 1995 2:40 AM To: Gerald_S_Molzhammer [Intel email address]; Claude_M_Leglise [Intel email address]; Bill_R_Miller [Intel email address]; Robert_Sullivan [Intel email address] Ronald_J_Whittier [Intel email address]; Craig_Kinnie [Intel email address]; mcg [Intel email address] Cc: Ken_Rhodes [Intel email address]; Murali_Veeramoney [Intel email address]; Joe_Casey [Intel email address]; Frank_T_Ehrig [Intel email address] Subject: Microsoft Face to Face Summary Text item: Text_1 Bottom-Line: - Based on W95 experience MS finds that they need to own all drivers - Expect no real cooperation from MS on NSP or media; input/education is welcome, of course - At Games developers conference focus on “Design scalable games for Pentium” message; DON’T make a half-hearted attempt to push Native audio without a compelling ISV story (current POR). MS messages are tuned for this audience; we’d come across defensive at best - Bill, let’s do the Native Audio press release before GDC; it won’t harm our MS relationship :-) Gerald Details: We met with Carl Stork, Marshall Brumer, and Eric Engstrom for 3 hours. WinHEC clearly opened their eyes regarding the scope of NSP. They are upset with us being in “their” OS space - no surprise there. Interestingly, they have evolved their thinking on what their “space” needs to be. 1-MS moving towards vertical integration of driver SW. In short, they feel they need to own ALL driver software “to the metal” i.e. silicon - a significant shift from owning the core OS and allowing innovation at the driver/HW level. A recurring theme was that nobody but MS is qualified to do good driver SW. In their mind, W95 was delayed 9 months by 3rd party driver dependence. That this means for the games SDK is that they are focusing only on the ISV (API) aspect and all but ignore the IHV (HAL/DDI) aspect. They intend to provide ALL drivers for all interesting HW - a fallacy given the horizontal nature of the PC industry. Nonetheless, they are serious. (If they follow through with this, innovation at the HW level would grind to a halt since silicon vendors would need to rely on MS to get driver support for their new stuff. The good news is that IHVs would have to flock to Intel supported open NSP DDIs as the only way to innovate without depending on MS driver support for their widget.) 2- Cooperation - NOT! Stork openly admitted that MS has completely missed the boat on developing a compelling state of the art media subsystem for Windows95. But this is high priority for W96/97. He eluded to an upcoming reorg that may combine Osborne’s and Ludwig’s team to develop the next generation media architecture (nothing concrete yet but it will build on the Games SDK). Intel is welcome to provide input - but they own it down to the silicon :-) 3- Games Developers Conference I don’t expect MS to openly attack NSP at the GDC, BUT their thrust is clearly counter NSP. Eric went as far to insist that “any DSP [STAMPED] 477MSCID00235 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential [Plaintiff's Exhibit 4411 Page 2 of 2] page 2regardless how poor in performance is better than doing processing on the host - since the game is left with all of the CPU” (something games ISV’s are very vocal about). Amusingly, Direct Audio has an NSP-like SW emulation layer if the HW does not support a certain feature. This is not an inconsistency in their mind, of source, since MS will provide this SW. We should be watching out for a games-enabled ISA card/reference design from MS that provides advanced audio, 3D, and 2D support. Performance is achieved the old-fashioned way: lots of acceleration and memory behind a slow ISA bus. 4- DCI primary surface support makes it into W95; offscreen gets rearchitected later. According to Engstrom the offscreen aspect of DCI 1.0 cannot be reliably supported in W95 - they were not paying attention when DCI 1.0 was implemented. (I’m sure he is totally objective here given that DCI 1.0 was done by his predecessor jointly with Intel) He claims the DCI drivers provided by IHVs are buggy and violate the Windows programming model. He is paying lip-service to MS providing a Direct Video incarnation of the DCI 1.0 draw handler to support off-screen surfaces in the future but since video is not part of the games SDK this remains at risk. And, NO, Intel cannot help since this code has to be integral to W95. Games SDK Schedule (I expect this to change) Beta 1 Games Dev Conference Beta 2 July FCS September [STAMPED] 477MSCID00236 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4559 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4559 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4559[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 284 S. McGeady From: Steven McGeady [mcg] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 1995 5:43 PM To: Frank Gill Cc: Andy_Grove@[INTEL EMAIL ADDRESS] Subject: Re: marritz meeting summary I interpreted [sic] our meeting today consistent with Frank’s last paragraph. We now have completed our AR and will begin the Java program full force, consistent with the direction to do so without public disclosure. I take minor exception to the “insurance policy” positioning. I’m OK with that for MS, but Java isn’t an insurance policy for us at this time – it’s an important component part of a major application strategy. However, I don’t think that this needs to be resolved. I’m assigning about 5 existing ITL people to this, opening reqs for another 3-4, and engaging with IAL’s media suppliers to budget resources to include support in their media components, all per the GSR outcome. I take an additional AR to continue to educate Frank on the merits of Java and the position and motivation of Sun. On other topics, Richmond will get AR to “win” MS for Intercast architecture convergence at (virtually) any cost, mcg
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4559 p. 2 of 2 [PAGE 2]> have not starting anything until we talked today, we will not publicly endorse java, and i needed internal review before authorizing this work to > commence. So, bottom [sic] line, this is BIG BIG DEAL to them. > i am still pretty dumb in this space, but think we should do the > Work quietly as an insurance policy and see a few more cards > before any public disclosure. Lets talk. frank ----------- End of Original Message [STAMPED] 475MSCID00016 - Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4560 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4560 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4560 [STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 285 S.McGeady From: Dave Landsman [Intel email address] Sent: Monday, November 13, 1995 7:01 AM To: [Intel email addresses] Cc: [Intel email addresses] Subject: Draft Notes from Gill/Maritz Summit on 11/9 Attorney/Client Confidential Here are my notes from the Gill/Maritz summit on 11/9. Give me any comments and let me know if you’d like me to publish a full set of minutes, with more detail. Attendees from MS: Paul Maritz – Exec VP Platform Division Brian Moran – Program Mgr – Broadcast PC Craig Fiebig – Director Biz Strategy – WW Strategy Group Marshall Brumer – Acct Manager On Phone for Realtime Discussion: - Rich Rashid – VP Research - Paul Leach - ?? - Yoram Bernet – Senior Architect – Multimedia Server Key Issues: Java. We told MS that we were seeing this become enough of a factor in the market that we felt the need to fund efforts into performance tuning. Frank stated that we would not evangelize publically. Maritz reacted strongly to this, saying “it is premature for Intel to do this, there are very few apps being written for Java today, and nobody is going to make an architecture decision based upon Java”. MS’s stated concern in this area is not the Java language, per se, which they will support in their products as “just another language”, but Java component object model. MS wants Intel to support OCX’s and their object model, which is integral to their OS platform. Maritz said he would try to convince us to spend our energies elsewhere. Server. We told MS that we are using non-MS products (except for NT) in the initial [sic] version of our server. Reasons: 1) Our OEM’s are asking for the products we are using; 2) MS’s does not have a complete product set, specifically with respect to integrated HTML authoring and document management; and 3) MS has not treated us as a customer. For #3, we cited a number of issues. For example, we still don’t have ITL and ISD people registered as Gibraltar and Blackbird users, and that we only got Gibraltar through Alan Holzman, who happened to get it at an Internet briefing he was invited to, to which ITL and ISD were not involved. Bottom line: they are not treating us as a customer. Maritz said he would “fix it”. Where we can work together. Maritz identified two key areas for working closely together: 1) Integration of Internet and voice/video/telephony; and 2) 3D, specifically Talisman, within a month. On #1, we did not identify a specific AR, so AR is for ICG to identify how we proceed on this and have MS team close back with Brumer for who/how to proceed at MS. Many discussions are already underway around this topic. Perhaps we also need to roll up a vision here and present back to Maritz as a proposal, or ask him for one. One #2, Landsman has already been in touch with Jay Torborg. Torborg told me, as of 11/8, that he is waiting for Maritz’s go ahead to engage. So AR is: Landsman to get relevant Intel folks (PCD/OPSD/IAL) engaged with Torborg’s group. 1 [STAMPED] 457MSCID00040 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential Plaintiff's Exhibit 4560 p. 2 of 2 page 2Other Topics MS Overview of Internet Plans. Maritz gave an overview of their Internet plans that essentially stated the same info we heard in Redmond in meeting on 8/30. They plan to integrate the overall browsing environment into windows by having the right tools, runtime support for various content languages (including their own native document types, like Word and Excel, as well as 3rd parties, like Java, etc). Maritz said he would do an update of these plans to us in Dec/Jan, once they have gotten to the next level of detail. Real-Time. BSD is working on RSVP on Winsock2 sometime after the shell release of NT. Rashid is working on real-time as well, in context of Tiger. They agreed to have Abel to meet with R. Rashid (Research) and Dave Thompson (NT) on real-time. AR: Weinrib/Landsman Intercast. Maritz is very positive about Intercast. They want to continue the engineering discussions. He broke the topic into Windows platform issue and content. On platform, they want to continue the engineering discussions: “we do the DBS stack, you do the VBI stack”, and make sure it is supported well in Windows. As for standards group: “let’s synch on the engineering and that will take care of itself”. Content was kind of [sic] left off the plate in this discussion. AR: Haight/Landsman – Followup on Intercast engineering discussions. AR: Gill/Maritz – followup discussion in approximately one month toreview progress. Other Stuff I noted a comment that “DirectX will not be in the Shell release of NT”. 2 [STAMPED] 457MSCID00041 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4562 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4562 p. 1 of 1 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4562 [STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 565 [TRANSCRIBERS NOTES: AUTHOR USES MANY ARROWS AS BULLETS, WHICH ARE NOT REPRODUCED. ARROWS THAT CONNECT SENTENCES ARE NOTED] [HAND WRITTEN NOTES] [STAR] Microsoft Java Meeting - 4/9/96 Rewritten the VM [ARROW] Goes back to Sun Plan to ship broadly w/Inet Explorer Natively knows how to talk to COM Should work together to define APIs for Java Media “low-level manifestation” should be through COM object ifaces embedded VM COM object interfaces / will publish these soon [ARROW] Slightly before Beta ifaces: mid may/end of May JIT Byte code Invocation native methods [ARROW CONNECTS ifaces GROUP TO] Rob Wellend /John Thomason Mike Tutongie[NAME?] [STAR] “Broad distribution rights” Ludwig [ARROW] Media Interface Dean McRory – in Muglia’s group Rob Wellend – Ludwig John Thomason – “ “Joel Spegal’s [NAME?] organization” IE 4.0 [UNINTELLIGABLE] – Fall ’98 // IE3.0 – This Summer [STAMPED] 477MSCID00271 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4563 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4563 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4563[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 566 From: Alan J Hotzman [email address] Sent: Friday, April 19, 1996 2:56 PM To: [email addresses] Subject: MS/Intel Java Meeting Minutes – 4/18/96 Text item: Trip Report from Alan Hotzman & Burt Perry: MS/Intel Java Meeting 4/18/96 Attendees Bob Muglia, VP Tools Microsoft John Ludwig, VP Interfaces Microsoft John Thomason, Program Mgr Microsoft Mike Tatongy, Prject Lead – Java Microsoft Alan Hotzman, Strategic Partners Intel Burt Perry, Eng Program Mgr Intel Greg Eastman, VM Project Lead Intel Frank Ehrig, SSTM Mgr Intel MS will take part in the Sun 4/30 announcement of Java OS platforms MS VM built from spec, no Sun code MS has changed native interfaces. Not compliant w/Sun’s current native interface at the binary level: As part of rewriting the Java VM, MS has completely changed the internal object model to accommodate COM. We think they have not told Sun and this may be an issue for Sun as well as us if Intel and MS give a single optimized IA Java RT back to Sun. The current method for calling native methods in the MS Java VM is different and not compatible with Sun’s. MS will provide include files that allow you to bridge between the two al the source code level but not at the binary level. MS believe their VM is 2X faster than Netscape Discuss w/Clary. how can we work w/Microsoft ? Get Sun permission Tell Clary to call Muglia on us working together if there is a problem with Clary agreeing to it Get a letter from Clary giving us permission to work together MS has not done interpreter optimizations and is very interested in working together to produce a single reference implementation for IA Java on Windows. The IE 3.0 timeframe of June is not possible for integration of Intel &MS VMs, but IE 4.0 in fall is IE 3.0 will have new MS VM in it through. IE 4.0 (as part of Nashville) is right target to combine MS & Intel VM work Muglia/Ludwig want exclusive access to IA’s VM work: Ludwig does NOT want us to give Netscape our VM work Netscape access to VM is VERY touchy w/MS!!! Ludwig wants us to work through Microsoft, not got to Netscape unless we were unhappy with MS cooperation (or lack thereof). Let Ludwig know we’re unhappy BEFORE we got to Netscape Issue: If we work with MS, they want us to start with their new code. Technically this is not a problem but when we jointly give Sun the code, they will be astonished because it will be totally different [STAMPED] 477MSCID00026 - Intel Business Information - Highly Confidential Plaintiff's Exhibit 4563 p. 2 of 2 page 2than their source base and will have no shared code with any other implementation. Rather, it will be Microsoft’s architecture. How will Sun feel about this and our participation in this (Wintel all over again?). A Java JIT will be standard in the OS from MS. Will always be there, make decisions on what to JIT and why Borland doing the same with Netscape! Class Libraries MS has integrated COM as inherent part of Java VM so they want all classes to simply be COM interfaces. Plan to develop cross platform (Windows, Mac, UNIX) class libraries (built in native code, not Java) for: Media and graphics, Data building / data access, forms. MS is considering a UNIX client for IE Software AG is/WILL port COM & DCOM to all UNIX platforms MS assuming that class libraries will be anti-MS coming from Sun no matter what! thus, get ISVs & developers to write to MS class libraries Get anti-MS developers by porting COM to the MAC etc. Forms class libraries were THE most important to MS Can we work together on defining Java Class libraries “outside” of the Sun Class Library definitions ??? Muglia wants to work with us on defining media classes that work directly with COM BOTTOM LINE: They want developers writing to their APIs not Sun’s Java APIs and strongly want us to rethink what we are doing. They want to work with us to define media class libraries that we are happy with. Ludwig will give us a date for their Media Class Interfaces Specs on Monday 4/22 after he meets with the engineers. Key Ars: 1. AHotzman/BDawson – get Clary letter on MS & Intel working together on VM (combine work). 2. AHotzman/BDawson – Investigate – How do Intel/MS work together on defining Class Libs. Look at our Sun Media NDA and see if there are legal issues that prevent us from working with MS. Do we want to work with MS on these? Attached document placed in: /tmp_mnt/ffs/f/mcg/attach/java/micros~1.doc on Sat Apr 20 13:21:40 PDT 1996 [STAMPED] 477MSCID00027 – Intel Business Information – Highly Confidential PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4564 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4564 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4564[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 1204 Jackson 10/7/98 [1 line unintelligible] Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:53:36 –0700 To: [email addresses @prognet.com] From: Rob Glaser <robg> Subject: MS-RN meeting 10-9 Cc: [email addresses] RN Confidential On Thursday (10-9) Jim B and I met with Anthony Bay to discuss how we might move the MS-RN relationship forward in a positive way. The meeting was a follow-up to a meeting that took place last week. Joining Anthony (unexpectedly) at the meeting was David Rinn. The tone of the meeting was frostier than my recent interactions with Anthony, indeed colder [sic] than expected. Anthony began by saying that the relationship between our 2 companies is in his mind “95% competitive.” At first he said he couldn’t think of anything positive that had happened between our companies. I countered that we thought they would think the ASF area was positive. He backed off a bit and said he agreed that our joint ASF work had been very positive. We (Jim and I) expressed a strong desire to have a positive relationship between our two companies where possible, recognizing that while there would be substantial areas where we would compete, we thought that there were substantial areas where we could cooperate. Anthony was not exactly receptive to this, although he didn’t want to close the door. He and Rinn indicated that in their opinion, RN had not always behaved honorably since the MS-RN deal was done. He suggested (and Rinn said point blank) that we had not been straight with MS about our intentions on a number of fronts. For instance Rinn said we must have had a secret plan to go public before we did our deal with them, suggesting that we did this intentionally to devalue their warrants. Jim told them the exact date of the board meeting where the topic first got serious attention, and the date of the board meeting (when I was in New Zealand) where we made the decision. Since it was outrageous statement season, Rinn again reiterated the MS finance view that at the time we did the deal, RN had “screwed MS over the warrant.” I disputed this and asked him to explain why he thought this was true. He declined to do so. Moreover, they said that they had hoped/expected that RN would not be staying in the horizontal streaming media business, and, perhaps even more outrageously, they claimed that I had privately suggested this to senior people at MS. I completely disputed this, pointing out for instance that the structure of our deal with MS ($25 and $35 million future options) runs directly counter to the notion of RN not doing future horizontal work. They backed off a little, and suggest I talk privately with the person who they say claims that I said this. I certainly plan to do so. Throughout this Jim and I stayed calm (not as hard as I thought it would be, because their comments were so ridiculously off-base). After they finished venting, we tried to get the discussion back on track to focus on constructive things we could do together. Anthony again suggested “hey why don’t you guys just become like SAP, building everything on top of MS’s full platforms”? We said that it was unlikely to make sense for the foreseeable future for us to just do this for a variety of reasons. [STAMPED] MS-PCA1548647 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4564 p. 2 of 2 page 2[1 line unintelligible] but adobe has a big apps business that supports MS platforms. Anthony was not super willing to embrace the “Adobe” model, though it was not absolutely clear why. Going from abstractions to practicalities, we said that were truly were open to supporting MS platforms in value-added ways, including where appropriate even their streaming media platforms if they provided a business model that made sense. We said we thought the right set of initiatives could move the needle from 95% adversarial to say 80% adversarial and 20% cooperative, and that there was real value in this especially if one focused on the trendline. We touched on ideas such as having Timecast list programs in ASF and/or Netshow formats, or having our player play their formats as well as our own. We took the action item to write up a list of proposed ways to work together. I will draft up a list this week then pass it around internally for comment. The plan is to meet with Anthony in about 10-15 days to go through the list. We also touched on a few tactical issues, including: n MS’s warrants and decision regarding stock conversion (a subject of great emotion for Maffei and Rinn). I proposed a compromise -- that if MS agreed to take nonvoting shares, including potentially the warrant if exercised, we would agree that these shares could convert to voting upon sale. Rinn said he would check with Maffei on this and get back to us. Mark please follow-up with Rinn. n MS pre-paying us the full $30 mil license fee. They “want the $10 mil back” until we fulfill the obligations. I agreed to look into this and get back to them this week. Mark please drive this and keep me posted when we’re prepared to get back to them. n Them saying that they had not gotten the full deliveries from us of all the bits. On friday Anthony sent me a list of missing pieces, and Phil is in the process of formulating a response and delivery by EOD monday. n On-going issues regarding branding and uninstall. The[y] said they would get back to us whether they wanted us to just do the uninstall work as part of our 6 person-months of consulting. (Phil have you gotten an estimate on this yet? If not please do so). Re branding, Kelly ball is in your court to write a letter re: our position on what they currently have up on their site. Kelly pls let me know when you can get this letter done, hopefully by EOD tuesday. n Anthony it’s clear that Anthony is choosing to more closely identify with the hostile troops than with a more balanced view of the relationship. This is unfortunate, but we will do the best we can given this reality. [STAMPED] MS-PCA1548648 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4574 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4574 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4574[STAMPED] GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 289 From: Bill Gates Sent: Sunday, June 09, 1996, 10 26 PM To: Paul Mantz Cc: Carol Stork, Marshall Brumer, Bob Kruger, Joachim Kempin, Brad Silverberg, Jim Allchin (Exchange), Rich Tong, Hank Virgil, Craig Mundie, John Ludwig Subject: Intel – Andy Grove meeting June 7 I spent 2 5 hours with Andy on Friday. We met 1-1 and discussed a variety of important topics. Background. Our relationship with Intel is advancing on many fronts. I was very impressed by the Intel roadmap presentation although I wasn’t there in person. They are going to deliver 50% performance increases every year in massive volume. If you compare their plans to the other processors vendors Intel seems to be pulling ahead. I am pleased that more group at Microsoft are taking the risk of really involving Intel. Issues 1. DMI. Intel is super serious about DMI. Although we have promised to ship DMREG they feel we continue to see DMI as a want on our real approach. Andy thinks cost of ownership is super important and he thinks DMI is here now and we should embrace it rather than trying to go around it and do something better. I told Andy that I thought we still didn’t see DMI as central to our strategy but I would dig into whether there is an approach or a change that might allow us to be more synergistic here. If we are going to leverage Intel and the industry work done on DMI we may need to think of this as more than a mapping layer. I pass this one along to Bob Kruger to consider. 2. Cost of Ownership. As discussed in #1 Intel is heard core about trying to show PCs can be low cost of ownership. Andy showed me a diagram with a 2x2 and where centralized admin is one axis and power needed is the other axis. He has airline res terminals and the like as the centrally admined and lower power. He has decided that someone in Frank Gill’s group needs to get involved with this. He was excited when I talked about including Gartner. Like us they will move this from their NC group. Steve Nochshern will continue to do Webphone working with CPD. We didn’t talk about Webphone specifically but he thinks their effort is important. Someone under Frank will work with us on this cost thing. Andy was very excited about the idea of a “stateless PC”. Unclear to me how we leverage Intel’s resources to help out on this initiative. A minor note is that Andy thinks their cost of ownership is $8k per pc per year. I said that sounded 4x high to me but it must be a difference in what is included. 3. AGP. Intel is hard core about AGP. They [sic] know it requires some system support. They feel it is super important for them as they induce Klamath. They [sic] would like to really push MMX, Klamath and AGP as part of a “big bang” as early as next April even though these programs don’t come out on exactly the same day. They will only ship a few hundred thousand MMX parts this year so they won’t be pushing that in the mainstream. They are counting on us for AGP support. 4. Merced LOI. I told Andy that we were quite optimistic things will get resolved with HP in the next few weeks and then we will move quickly to sign the Merced LOI. In the next meeting I have with Andy in September we will review how much Intel should count on our work. Andy will determine how much they focus on other operating systems based on whether he feels he needs them as an insurance policy. I said based on the way we are working with Intel and getting them to do most of the Merced work, I thought he would be pleased 3 months from now how much has gotten done. Intel is disappointed we seem to think that their 98 date has a lot of risk. They don’t feel that it does. Andy wanted to understand our DEC 64bit announcement. 5. NT/Pentium Pro marketing. Intel is not shy about spending money IF they are really our only partner on this and if they get equal treatment and its not just them supporting us. They want Pentium Pro to get prominent positioning from this. I said I thought we would make them glad they are part of this but I would double check to make sure their expectations would be fulfilled. 6. Intel and Intranet day. I told Andy how great this event is going to be. He said they had heard that but they were told they couldn’t attend. I said I would make sure we freed up 3-4 seats for them and have someone contact them on Monday. It is URGENT that someone follow up on this. Marshall should check how to do this and make sure the invites get offered. 7. Security. They are not happy about our work with them. I said we have to work with W3C as a top priority. I didn’t have enough data to explain why we aren’t able to get along on this. We should try again. 8. Conferencing collaboration. I got the mail about the problems we are having with them too late to bring this up. Andy heard we are working well with them. The recent mail I got says we are not. I suggest Paul call Pat Gelsinger (who Andy thinks walks on water) and/or Frank before I get involved. I am happy to get involved. They may never have gotten over the issue of this being a P&L versus purely strategic. It sounds like we have concrete evidence of them not being a good partner. 9. JAVA. I told Andy that it’s [sic] inappropriate for their group to take anything resembling a Windows API and wrap it as a JAVA API. He agreed this was out of line but he didn’t think that was what his 6 people were doing. He thinks they are just optimizing for Intel. If they are taking DirectX aps [sic] and wrapping those then I need to register a much louder complaint. 10. Browser. I thanks Andy for pushing his web people in our direction. I said it was important to us that they NOT ever publicly say they are standardizing on Netscape browsers. [STAMPED] MS98 0169187 CONFIDENTIAL Plaintiff's Exhibit 4574 p. 2 of 2 page 211. Hood River. Talisman/Wizard. I told Andy these are excellent very important efforts that from our point of view they should make sure to put a lot of resources into because they fit perfectly with out strategy. We will meet again in September and continue to exchange lots of email between now and then. The Fortune magazine coming out in a week features a joint Interview with Andy and I where we are very friendly to each other. [STAMPED] MS98 0169188 CONFIDENTIAL Gordon et. al. v. Microsoft Exhibits Published to Web April 06, 2004 Not Complete Last Revised 4/25/2004 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4423 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4423 Page 1 of 2 [STAMPED] SIGNED ORIGINAL AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT This amendment to the License Agreement between MICROSOFT CORPORATION (''MS'') and ZEOS INTERNATIONAL, LTD. ("COMPANY") dated June 1, 1990 ("Agreement"), is made and entered into this 1st day of November 1990. 1. The Effective Date of this Agreement will change from June 1, 1990 to April 1, 1990. 2. Section 9, second paragraph located on page 8 is hereby replaced with the following: Upon execution by both parties. this Agreement supersedes and replaces MS Contract #4934-0022 ("PRIOR AGREEMENT") between COMPANY and MS. 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. Any such credit shall be applied to reduce COMPANY's minimum commitment payment due upon signing of this Agreement, as reflected in Exhibit B. 3. Telephone numbers found in Section 15 (page 11) will change from: (COMPANY) 612-633-1175 to 612-633-4591 and (Legal) 612-633-4591 to 912-633-1175 4. Any Customer Systems shipped between April 1, 1990 and May 31, 1990 without Windows 3.0 shall be excluded from any royalties due for Windows 3.0 as stated in Exhibit C1. Any and all royalties due for MS-DOS on such systems shall still be in effect. The Customer Systems excluded from royalties must be stated as such on the royalty reports. 5. Any Customer Systems shipped between January 1, 1990 and July 31, 1990 under PRIOR AGREEMENT and this Agreement that included Packaged Product MS-DOS purchased from MS under license #4934-9125, and/or MS-DOS purchased from Phoenix Technologies, Ltd. shall be excluded from any royalties due under PRIOR AGREEMENT or this Agreement. The Customer Systems excluded from royalties must be stated as such on the royalty reports. [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1302 No: 2:96CV645E [STAMPED] MICROSOFT LICENSE NO. 4934-0130 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4423 Page 2 of 2 6. In the event of inconsistencies between the Agreement and this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Amendment shall be controlling. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the License Agreement as of the date set forth above. All signed copies of this shall be effective upon execution on behalf of COMPANY and MS by their duly authorized representatives.
Date Of Issue: November 1, 1990 This Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, unless executed by COMPANY and returned to MS within thirty (30) days of the above "Date of Issue". FAX copies are unacceptable. 11/02/90 3026M [STAMPED] MS-PCA 1193955 CONFIDENTIAL Gordon, et. al v. Microsoft Exhibits Published to Web April 07, 2004 Not Complete Last Revised 4/25/2004 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4576 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4576 p. 1 of 5 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4576 Gordon v. Microsoft[HANDWRITTEN] Follow up 5/10[/1993?] [HANDWRITTEN] F Microsoft [STAMPED] Reiswig [?] Exb. 1 [HANDWRITTEN] 931270287 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL IBM 0410327245 Administrative Assistant, Office of the AGM, Market Development and Operations [ADDRESS] [TELEPHONE] May 6, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. W. W. Casey Mr. J. V. Kalb, Jr. Mr. E. M. Lineen Mr. J. R. Patrick Mr. L. R. Reiswig, Jr. SUBJECT: Briefing Sheet for Gerstner Call to Bill Gates May 26 The attached briefing sheet has been prepared for Lou Gerstner for his May 26 call with Bill Gates. Please review and return your comments to Mike Nolan by May 10 so that he can incorporate them into the final version for Jim. Mike Nolan's PROFS ID is [PROFS ID]; Fax [FAX] T/L [TELEPHONE]. Thank you. R. L. Blair RB/ag Attachment Plaintiff's Exhibit 4576 p. 2 of 5 [STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL IBM 0410327246[FAX TIMESTAMP] May 6 '[19]93 8:33 FROM IBM BOCA [FAX NUMBER] PAGE 001 Fax Transmittal Memo 7672 To [HANDWRITTEN] Ray Blair Number of Pages 4 From [HANDWRITTEN] Mike Nolan [?] Today's Date [HANDWRITTEN] 5/6[/1993] [FAX NUMBER] [TELEPHONE NUMBER] Microsoft Company Profile: Founded: 1975 Incorporated: 1981 IPO: 1986 CEO: William H. Gates Exec VP Products: Michael J. Maples Exec VP Marketing: Steven A. Ballmer Employees: 11,500 (WW 12/92) [COLUMN HEADER FOR PERCENTAGES BELOW] % Rev Total Revenues (1/92-12/92) $1.2B [?] Cost of Revenue $0.5B 17% Gross Profit $[?] 83% Operating Expenses - R&D $0.4 B 13% - Sales and Marketing $1.0B 32% - G&A $0.1B 3% SG&A Expense/Revenue 35% Statement of Operation: Engaged in Design, Manufacturer, Marketing, And Support Of Microcomputer Systems and Application Software Products And Related Books, Hardware, And CD ROM Products Vision: "Information At Your Fingertips" - Empower The User By Making Inforamtion Easy To Find & Use - Make Technology More Approachable Yet Offer[indistinct] People Access To More Information Than Ever Before - "Windows Everywhere" is the Foundation Of This Vision Strategy Summary: Microsoft develops and markets the broadest line of PC software products for Intel, Apple, RISC and UNIX platforms. Their goal is to establish "Windows Everywhere" by extending their operating systems from the desktop up to workstations, servers and mainframes and down to consumer devices such as wallet computers, fax machines and television cable converters. The operating systems then leverage Microsoft's programming tools, applications and services. Products are acquired or developed internally using proprietary tools and customers are used exclusively for testing. Being early to market is more important than function or quality. Their business strategy is focused on defining industry standards through market share. Specific tactics to drive market share and long-term customer commitment include: - Exclusive contracts for preloading Microsoft software on OEM equipment - Deep discounts for running Microsoft software on all PCs in large accounts [indistinct] - Aggressive upgrade pricing and bundling of competitive functions in the operating system Microsoft also publicizes their strategies and product directions frequently and aggressively, highlighting future offerings years before availability. Microsoft executives are highly visible with customers, press and the consultant communities. Generating negative information about the competition seems [indistinct] to be part of their PR effort. Bill Gates: Bill Gates is Microsoft. The company's identity and products are all perceivedto emanate [indistinct] from him. He is a Harvard University dropout... very driven... an innovator and visionary. Bill Gates has a special allure that attracts curiosity, as well as an abundance of press about him. He has ben labeled the "Julius Caesar of the software industry" .. ruthless, incisive, and tactically brilliant. "Unlike most founder-chairman types, Gates is a strategic thinker...at every turn of the road, he's made long-term decisions that have paid off. He licensed MS-DOS to IBM instead of selling it. Most 25-year-olds would have sold the farm." At the brink of success of Visicalc, Gates decided that application software (spreadsheets, word processors, data bases, etc) would be a category he would have to dominate in order to achieve his goals for Microsoft. Bill maintains a very casual demeanor (e.g. he uses words like "cool" & "rad"). He works 15-hour days, 7 days a week. He is frequently considered "quirky"...likes expensive sports cards and did not own a television until recently. He has publicly stated that his goal is to "bury IBM" and that "OS/2 is dead." IBM Confidential Plaintiff's Exhibit 4576 p. 3 of 5 [NOT YET TRANSCRIBED]Plaintiff's Exhibit 4576 p. 4 of 5 [NOT YET TRANSCRIBED]Plaintiff's Exhibit 4576 p. 5 of 5 [NOT YET TRANSCRIBED]Gordon et. al. v. Microsoft Exhibits Published to Web April 15, 2004 Not Complete Last Revised 4/25/2004 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 62 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 62 Page 1 of 3 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 62 Gordon v.. Microsoft[STAMPED] X180836 CONFIDENTIAL [text begins with the end of a sentence] we need. From billg Tue Feb 21 19:55:09 1989 To: mikemap Subject: Microgrphx Cc: steveb Date: Tue Feb 21 19:55:09 1989 Mail-Flags: 0000 Steve talked to grayson at the conference. The[y] said they are wiling to make it 10k for big companies and 1k for companies with less than either 3M or 2m in sales. Based on this us getting full use for you including source code and rights to incorporate wherever at noe [sic] extra charge after that seems like a shoe-in. Talk to steveb about this. I am excited about us making this happen. From steveb Wed Feb 22 10:18:49 1989 To: billg mikemap Subject: Micrographx Date: Wed Feb 22 10:18:47 1989 Mail-Flags: 0000 as billg said mike only question is corp accts[.] They dop [sic "do"] not resell[.] should be 1000 not 10000 but confirmation with MG is needed[.] From billg Tue Feb 21 17:09:01 1989 To: mikemap Subject: Re: Mirrors Date: Tue Feb 21 17:09:01 1989 Mail-Flags: 0000 These guys told me explicitly they were not trying to make money on this product and they did it for their own use at first and were pleased others might want to use it. Their price is $10k. Agreeing to pay them $100k to get total source rights and all updates is a fantastic deal for them. I want to call and tell them they are liars and we would have to create this ourselves if they don't get reasonable. They explicitly said we could have source. They will get a great deal if they take updates from us. I dont [sic] want there to be any restrictions on us after a year because we may incorporate some comatibility stuff into windows or PM and althought [sic] we dont [sic] plan to use their code I dont [sic] want any garbage from them. windows or pm after a year we pay a small sum. They should want us to make windows and PM closer. This is all crazy. We need to get moving and that means closing a deal fast. I thought these guys bragged about quick decision making. GO ahead and work on them so[me] more and keep me posted. From cameronm Thu Apr 13 22:28:45 1989 To: martyta paulma petern waggenerltwg warrenm Cc: alistair billg bobt jonl lioneljo mark[?]sc mikemap patbe peteh steveb viktorg Subject: Comdex OS/2 ISV Luncheon Date: Mon Apr 10 21:23:53 1989 Mail-Flags: 0000 On Tuesday 4/11[/1989] IBM and MS hosted a luncheon at Comdex for the top ISVs in the industry to evangelize and push OS/2 PM application development. Plaintiff's Exhibit 62 Page 2 of 3 [STAMPED] X180837 CONFIDENTIALTalks were given by Lee Reiswig and Jim Cannavino of IBM and by Billg and Steveb. After the brief talks it was opened up to discussion and comments/suggestions by the ISVs. Lee Reiswig began by going over the marketing promotions we will be offering ISVs (advetorials, co-op advertising, road show, trade show space, etc.). Bill and Steve went over the technical support we are offering and the device driver schedules and distribution plan. Jim Cannavino disclosed IBM's plan to remove the additional cost from the customer[']s decision in choosing OS/2 as an environment (he hinted and later said more clearly that IBM would ship machines configured with 4Meg at no additional cost). IBM will also offer low cost memory upgrade kits for OS/2 buyers. The luncheon was to reiterate MS and IBM commitment to making OS/2 successful and helping ISVs successfully develop and market OS/2 applications. Problems that were brought up:
Plaintiff's Exhibit 62 Page 3 of 3 [STAMPED] X180838 CONFIDENTIALcosts and problems of OS/2, very few people understand its benefits. IBM and MS need to create demand for OS/2 products by explaining OS/2's benefits. While technical problems were raised they were enver belaboured because the ISVs seemed comfortable that we knew about them already and that we would fix them (Billg took them through the latest device driver schedules and distribution plan). Suggestions that were made:
ISV Attendees: Ashton-Tate, Joe Brillando, VP Corporate marketing & Strategy WordPerfect, Alan Ashton, President & CEO Borland, Philippe Kahn, CEO Microsoft, Mike Maples Aldus, Mike Solomon, VP Marketing Symantec, Gordon Eubanks, CEO Ventura, John Meyer, President Microrim, David Hull, President Samna, Said Mohammedioun, CEO Asymetrix, Steve Wood, VP Marketing DRI, Dana Hooper MDBS, Gary Rush, President Informix, John Millovich (server business) Informix, Ron Ferguson, VP Marketing (Wingz & Smart) PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4588 Gordon v. Microsoft [ Top ] Plaintiff's Exhibit 4588 p. 1 of 2 [STAMPED] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4588 Gordon v. Microsoft[STAMPED] Grovernment Exhibit 277 [STAMPED] MS98 0169352 CONFIDENTIAL [MEMO LETTERHEAD] Bill Gates From: Bill Gates Sent: Thursday, May 25, 1995 9:42 AM To: Carl Stork (carls); Paul Maritz (paulma) Subject: FW: NSP Here is mail I sent to Andy. He and I will talk on the phone in the next few days. Any furhter [sic, "further] guidance is valuable although I think Carl's mail laid out the issues quite clearly. We need so[me] decent compromise here and its not clear to me what it is. Should we agree to work with this group on specific things to get them redirected? It's a shame we have no input from them on Windows97. From: Bill Gates Sent: Thursday, May 25, 1995 9:34 AM To: 'Andy Grove [EMAIL ADDRESS at Intel]' Subject: NSP I've learned some more about this. I am not emotionally involved in this particular debate but there is a significant problem here that is on a path to get a lot worse. NSP means a lot of different things. What it means in terms of hardware and the processor being able to take over more and more functions in [sic, "is"] non-controversial. What is a problem is the incompatibility and overlap of systems software done under the label NSP. Actaully [sic, "Actually"] some of the software elements are Ok - we still seem to have a common view of TAPI, IrDA and APM. Each of these has to be improved so with our current relationship we will probably diverge on each of these. The ones that are a major problem for Windows95 and WindowsNT today are SPOX, Native aduio [sic, "audio"], DCI, 3DR, DMI, PCMCIA card services and Instant on. These are incompatible with where we are taking Windows and have many problems with Windows95. When we talked I didn't realize that Kinnie was involved in NSP. In fact not only is he involved but he feels that he has personally championed all of the elements against resistance inside Intel and Microsoft and that he will overcome non-believers. He seems to feel that although Intel doesn't share what it is doing in system software with us that he feels like we are supposed to explain exactly what we are doing in advance. Just recently we called to get a SPOX development kit and nnow Ron and Craig are thinking about whether to send us one or not. They first demanded we guarantee compatibility with SPOX before they would send us the kit. ISVs are more confused about what to do by Intel's attacks on our Windows plans than they are by Apples. Structurally it[']s very hard to have our people working as best they can to advance PC software standards with a group of 200 people fully funded to basic[al]ly try to do the same thing in parallel with no guidance to coordinate with us at all. They don't share with us because of Intel's IP attitude. We tried shipping some Intel code relative to DCI and ended up in this Apple lawsuit that has been very damaging. I don't understand why Intel funds a group that is against Windows95. Craig's group uses VxDs. Even if he fixes his stuff to run with Windows95 we don't have VxDs on Windows NT. Craig[']s attitude is he doesn't care about NT and our family strategy. It turns out that the P6 slows down certain 16bit operations so it only runs Windows95 about 15% faster than an equivalent pentium. Windows NT gets the full benefit of the P6. It seems like Craig's not believing in Windows NT will be a major boon for AMD chips since they will run todays Windows 3.1 faster than any Intel chip. The problem we have is that we have to sort of choose in software related issues which company will lead and which will follow. In chips its very clear. In software you hav a group that won't allow us to lead and has all the prestide [sic, "prestige"] and profits of Intel to drive them forward. If we picked someone neutral and asked them to compare what we are doing in graphics and sound to Native Audio, 3dr DCI and your other work I have no doubt they would say our work is equal or better. However Craig and Ron don't believe they should give up on anything. Meanwhile we have told our group that they need to evolve Windows software including Windows NT. [PAGE NUMBER] Page 305 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4588 p. 2 of 2 [STAMPED] MS 0169353 CONFIDENTIALWe should talk on the phone more about this. [PAGE NUMBER] Page 306
|
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the individual posters. PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) |
Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell. Groklaw logo by John Crowley. News Picks logo by Ted Thompson. Powered By GeekLog Created this page in 0.04 seconds |