-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ ray on Sunday 01 February 2009 21:18 : \____
> Looks at though Dilbert may have been reading MS internal memos.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/30000/9000/700/39711/39711.strip.sunday.gif
Comes vs. Microsoft - exhibit px03112, as text
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
—Original Message—
From: Joachim Kempin
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:57 PM
To: Bill Gates
Cc: Mike Porter, Carl Stork
Subject: Intel
I have been trying to gather some background info. The more I dig in it becomes
clear that Intel is connecting with all the UNIX groups inside the large OEMs
who are not MS friendly in the first place and are encouraging them to go to
Linux-which they call a unified UNIX(which seems stupid even to me)
they throw promotional funds at them to develop new devices based on this OS
and are encouraging Itanium work by asking the OEMs to adopt their own
apps(middle ware) and encourage some of their key ISVs to do so.
Some of the money is INTEL inside money- the just go beyond the normal rates or
qualify Linux adds under the same scheme.
Some OEMs are telling me that the total outlay for Intel is between 100-200M$
year-but there is no hard data for the total amount. Siemens told me they were
offered 5-6M$ for this 6 months ago and I know that they funded a netdevice in
NEC and made approx. 10M$ available.
I have been sending for some time mail with this info and mentioned it during
our exec retreat. The hard part is the answer- in one way we are married to
them on the other hand they are destroying the basis for the marriage. To play
this the hard way would prob cause more damage than we need and get more
attention than we need. On the OEM side I am thinking of putting hitting the
OEM harder than in the past with anti Linux actions, in addition I will stop
any go-to-market activities with Intel and only work with their competitors
(something which is easy to do because they normally put crazy demands on us).
For the rest of the company this is harder. I have been complaining that we
have no real Linux watch-dog group in MS, a lot of people have some ideas and
actions around this but nobody is really responsible- I will establish this
for OEM, may be we should do it for the company as well. I do not think you
can do more than explaining what that Linux is bad for Intel, let’s leave it
there and do as they do- work underground with the clear understanding to
promote and advantage the guys with less market share without declaring our
strategy.
I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be
less gracious when interpreting agreements- again without being obvious about
it. The last thing we need need is them shutting us down- so this will have to
be a delicate dance. But openess with them and sharing our real plans should
not longer be done- they are not doing it either.
PLAINTIFF’S
EXHIBIT
276
MS010049218
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmGNwQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4gIQCggC7BQg/W0nmYbF1yNypxc3Eu
NJ8An1U5iMOs2orQZwXoNJGAX97lJ2ou
=/qpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
