[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

safely passing the Doubledisk source ..

From: Brad Silverberg
To: Bill Gates; Paul Maritz
Subject: FW: Doubledisk summary
Date: Friday, May 15, 1992 5:22 PM

as i mentioned this afternoon, dd was here today. all systems go.

From: Richard Freedman
To: Ben Slivka; Bill Pope; Brad Chase; Brad Silverberg; Eric Straub; KArl Stock; Mack Mccauley
Cc: SYS MS-DOS MArketing Team; Richard Freedman
Subject: Doubledisk summary
Date: Friday, May 15, 1992 4:26 PM

Bradc, billp and I met w/Anatoly Tikhman And his lawyer Don Reinke today to go over the contract. Karlst and bens sat in for a bot to hash out some technical issues.

Bottom line: we have a deal. Some changes in details, but nothing major. We made a few concessions predicated on getting the code by 6/1, which looks very likely. Details below.

Acceptance and Payment

Anatoly will send object next tuesday. We will test to make sure it is ok. After contract signing and source drop, we will compile the source. Our only grounds for rejecting the source will be if it doesn't binary compare to the object tested before signing. Once we accept, we pay $150K. We can kill deal if the sources do not compare.

We then pay $400K on shipping MS-DOS 6 or on 6/30/93, whichever is earlier, $150K on shipping 1 mm MS-DOS 6 Upgrades, and another $150K on shipping 2 mm. These terms did not change.

Vertisoft will develop the Stacker conversion utility to our spec. Once it works, we accept and pay $100K. We cannot kill deal by rejecting the conversion utility; we can only withhold the $100K

Total payment = $750 + $400K + $150 + $150 + $100K = $1,550K


We have a total exclusive to DoubleDisk, meaning that Anatoly can't sell it to anyone, with the following exceptions:

* He may sell or license to end users directly or via normal software distribution. Normal distribution does not include OEMs.

* He may not bundle DoubleDisk except with his own technology that we will list explicitly in the contract.


* We agree to exchange improvements for the term of the agreement (4 years)

* We agree to give him any documentation we create

* He agreed to provide the following manpower free: 6 months of a programmer on site, 3 months of a second programmer on or off-site, and 1 month of a tester on-site.

* We agree to provide quarterly updates of our MS-DOS 6 Upgrade shipments.

* If the code is here by 6/1, we agreed to shorten the period during which we can exercise our buyout option from 4 years after contract signing to 1/1/95

* We agreed to let him continue fulfilling direct mail orders for 90 days after we exercise the buyout option.

* If code is here by 6/1, we agreed to split legal fees should we be sued for infringement on the conversion utility.

From: Brad Silverberg
To: David Cole, John Ludwig, Eric Rudder, Mack Mccauley
Subject: Norton Desktop for Windows
Date: Friday, May 15, 1992 5:24 PM

From: Aaron Getz
To: Brad Silverberg
Subject: Norton Desktop for Windows
Date: Friday, May 15, 1992 5:24 PM

I've been using Norton Desktop as my shell for a couple of weeks now.
	My overall reaction is mixed.
I hated the last version of Norton Desktop. It was excruciatingly slow, it's interrace was inelegant, and the directory tree structure was already expanded. Of course, I was comparing this to Win 3.1's file manager and program manager.

I generally like this version of Norton Desktop. The only reason I'm tempted to stop using it is because applications are running annoyingly slow on my machine. I've got an fast 386sx/20 with 6meg of memory. I'm not really sure if this is a result of 'Stacker', an old version of 'Bullet' or 'Norton Desktop'. The new version of Desktop seems much speedier than the old when you are actually using the shell.

The main functionality that I use is the ability to mix program items and groups in the top level of the program manager. This has basically saved me all my juggling with the present day program manager. Part of what makes this nice is the very well integrated and fairly large icon library.

Having the file manager windows be SMI is also an improvement,. Because of the fact that they are not clipped by an upper level window and the default size and positioning of windows, it is very easy to open two file manager windows on the screen. This is critical for easy of move/copy operations. The fact that the drive icons do not have friendly names is a big minus.

I used SmartErase for awhile, but it caused some problems so I turned it off. The whole process was a pain i n the rear.

Viewers are cool in concept, but they are two slow, and seemingly non-interruptible. It is almost always easier to just open the file. I love the view functionality which exists in Word 2.0

I don't drag items to the desktop to create push buttons. This just clutters up my screen. The ability to put the items directly into the main group of the program manager makes this unnecessary. I just use this window when I want to launch things. At the beginning


From: Brad Chase
To: Paul Maritz
Cc: Ben Slivka; Brad Chase; Brad Silverberg; Eric Straub; Kark Stock; Mack Mccauley; Marion Junttila; Richard Freedman
Subject: Compression Update 5/1
Date: Friday, May 01, 1992 1:51 PM

stac says they are interested in doing something and our proposal is a good start. They are willing to come up next week with their lawyer and try to bang out the details and they are willing to commit to get the lawyers and us together immediately thereafter if we agree. Lori is scheduling.




court documents in the case of Comes v Microsoft.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index