HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
PURSUANT TO
PROTECTIVE ORDER
gateway2000
To: Ted Waitt, Bill Elliot
From Penny L. Nash
Date July 11, 1997
Re: MS relationship Issues for Steve Ballmer
Cc: Jim Collas, Jim Von Holle
Kathy Skidmore & Jim Wharton
Per your request here are a list of Relationship issues concerning
Microsoft. Please review and provide your comments as to how much of
this should be sent to Steve Ballmer.
In the past six to twelve months we have seen a steady decline in the
over all business relationship between our two companies. The below
examples show this decline
* Obvious negative treatment due to our differences regarding Office
- Competitor continued Sales of Office 95 beyond contractual cut off dates.
- Adding new application titles/bundles to support our Software
Strategies has becoe burdensome and time consuming. This has created
unwillingness to use MS content in our bundles or our software strategies.
- MS causing delays in software PO shipments (due to licensing issues in
MS ' Troika System), which have caused Stop Ship situations (UK & APAC)
and risks little or no inventory levels globally. This had rarely
happened in past years but became noticeable in the last 3-6 months on a
"global basis". This has created negative feelings toward MS and
unwillingness to use MS content.
* Lack of support/responsiveness from our Account Mgr on
addressing/resolving issues.
- When issues are communicated they are immediately delegated. Very
little communication (takes days or with no return call or mail) or
ownership of issue resolution.
* When issues are delegated, the person(s) to which the delegation is
given do not have decision making authority, thus causing delay in
resolution. Often requires escalation to get immediate attention ot issues.
- Ofter are referred to others within MS to get movement on things and
are frequently told "this is not my responsibility you need to talk to
..." (eg. Agreements with other divisions of MS). When issue reach a
higher level (either at GQ or MS), we then see movement (CYA mode begins)
- RFQ for a mouse - MS was one of three Mouse Suppliers that was sent
this RFQ. MS did not reply. BF stated that he felt that they did not
need to reply because of our current contract and commitments.
* Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM team
- Net PC specification. GW involved in discussions but not part of the
OEM Team in drafting this specification (Dell, Compaq, HP & Intel) with MS.
- Country Store Proposal provided to incorrect contact after being
specifically informed of correct contact and Cc's
* No copy to Supply Management (for tracking) or correct contact for
timely reply. Appears that MS is trying to divide us. Causes frustration
on both sides and creates a negative opinion of MS on our side.
* Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM team Cont'd
- Often get mixed/numerous mixed messages/communication. Causes delays
in action. no accountability on either side and frustration on both
sides (but yet this continues even after communication of GW's Supplier
Policy from GPO & Supply Mgmgt).
- Sets up meetings with GW representatives with no communication to
Supply Management or GPO, and inconsistent messaging from GW (but yet
this continues even after communication of GW's Supplier Policy fromGPO
& Supply Mgmgt).
* Limitations on GW Flexibility
- Changes in policy witth no communication
* Changes to Windows 95 CD
* Funding for Premier Support Services Contract
- MS dictates how GW should deliver product to our customer even when
supplied with compelling proof of our customer needs/frustrations on
their product(s).
..
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02734.pdf
--
court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.
|