From aaronr Thu Mar 21 18:06:04 1991
To: billg stevb
cc: bradsi
Subject RE: Win 3.1 compatible WinWord 1.1A
Well sproket gaged on this the first time, so lets try again.
> From aaronr Thu Mar 21 17:38:40 1991
To: billg billn stevb
cc: bradsi divid col philba
Subject RE: Win 3.1 compatible WinWord 1.1A
Date: Thu Mar 21 17:33:24 1991
> From xxxxx Thu MAr 21 16:39:54 1991
To: obu - Mail alias composed 100% of people in the APPS division as
confirmed by doing a PHONE on them all.
Cc: xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
Subject RE: Win 3.1 compatible WinWord 1.1A
Date: Thu Mar 21 16:35:47 1991
..
Pretending that I am a legal type person doing discovery type stuff I am
rather inclined to say:
Microsoft applications division was in the possession of pre release
copies of Windows 3.10 well in advance of any non-Microsoft Windows ISVs
thus giving Microsoft Applications Division a substantial competitive
advantage over any non-Microsoft Windows ISV.
Any statement that a "wall" of some kind exists between Microsoft
applications and systems divisions is obviously false.
..
From billg Thu MAr 21 20:00:47 1991
To: arronr steveb
Subject RE: Win 3.1 compatible WinWord 1.1A
Cc: bradsi martyta
Date: Thu Mar 21 20:00:46 1991
I think you should be careful with this amateur lawyering
Who made a statement that any wall exists between applications and
systems? No one from Microsoft ever did. Our competitors have trotted
that out as a straw man just to shoot it down. It seems you have fallen
for that. There isn't a wall and we never said there is.
..
Our applications group has been totally open about their windows
strategy - our openness in enplaning what we are doing is a burden
imposed by also having a systems group. Every speech I have given for
the last 8 years talked about our commitment to do a family of windows
applications first.
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04385.pdf
--
court documents in the case of Comes v Microsoft.
|