SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ToySoldier who wrote (27063)5/27/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: Spartex  Respond to of 42771
 
Toy, OT

Make that a double, my recent hometown too! Talk about a coincidence!! LOL!

<<For example, Paul M., of Silver Spring, Maryland , posted a confession on the support forum when he accidentally deleted all his users' User Profiles using ZENworks >>

Where the President's use to go for summer weekend relief 5 miles north of the White House! =;-) Regards, QuadK



To: ToySoldier who wrote (27063)5/28/1999 8:47:00 AM
From: Spartex  Respond to of 42771
 
IBM Official Takes on Microsoft

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 28, 1999; Page E1

RALEIGH, N.C., May 27 –-
Microsoft Corp. forced IBM to
pay higher prices for Windows software -- at least $8 more per copy --
because IBM refused to stop distributing rival products, according to
testimony today from an IBM executive who will be the government's star
rebuttal witness in the Microsoft antitrust trial.

In seven hours of detailed, sometimes contentious testimony in a
deposition here, executive Garry Norris said Microsoft Chairman Bill
Gates at one point offered IBM major financial incentives if it would dump
its OS/2 software. Gates spoke of a close business partnership including
pricing discounts, preferential marketing programs and advanced technical
support for IBM, Norris said.

When International Business Machines Corp. spurned the offer, Norris
said, Microsoft retaliated by raising prices, refusing to share advanced
software code, disinviting IBM officials from Microsoft events and not
returning phone calls.

"We rejected these deals from time to time, and as a result of these
rejections we were told we would suffer higher prices -- and we did,"
Norris said during the deposition, held in a federal courtroom here. "We
were told we would not get other things our competitors got."

Norris was the IBM executive in charge of the firm's relationship with
Microsoft from 1995 to 1997. When the trial resumes next week,
government lawyers plan to use his testimony to demonstrate in vivid detail
how they believe Microsoft has illegally used its market clout to squelch
competition in the industry.

His allegations, which likely will be delivered in even greater specificity on
the witness stand, could strengthen the government's case significantly.
Until now, the government has been unable to persuade any large
computer manufacturer to testify against Microsoft because, it maintains,
they fear that Microsoft might retaliate.

IBM, the world's largest computer company, may have less to fear
because the sales of Windows-based personal computer account for only
a small portion of its annual revenue. At the same time, the government
hopes the testimony will show that Microsoft's monopoly power was so
potent that it was able to bully a company several times its size.

Microsoft officials have maintained that there was nothing illegal about its
negotiations with IBM. The Microsoft attorney who conducted today's
deposition, Richard C. Pepperman II, suggested at various times that the
strains in the IBM-Microsoft relationship were the result of various IBM
actions, including making disparaging comments about Windows and
failing to properly compensate Microsoft for its software.

The two companies were once close allies in the computer market: In
1981, IBM gave Microsoft its start as a leader in the global technology
industry by putting Microsoft's MS-DOS operating system in the first
IBM personal computers. In the mid-1980s, the two companies
collaborated to develop OS/2 to replace DOS.

A few years later, they began feuding and Microsoft dropped out of the
joint effort to focus on its Windows product, which today is installed on
about 90 percent of the world's new PCs.

IBM, however, kept plugging away at OS/2. But as Microsoft jumped
ahead, Norris said, the software giant began actively hindering IBM's
efforts to sell OS/2.

Norris said, for instance, that in 1993 an executive with Compaq
Computer Corp., a large PC maker, told him that when Microsoft
discovered Compaq was considering selling OS/2, a Microsoft
representative vowed to "make it difficult for Compaq." Norris said
Compaq eventually decided not to sell OS/2.

"We were told on several occasion by several PC manufacturers that they
had a desire to license OS/2, they had customers who wanted OS/2, but
once Microsoft discovered they were in negotiations with IBM, that
threats were made to them," Norris testified.

In late 1994, when IBM's PC division decided to start shipping machines
with both OS/2 and Windows, Norris said Microsoft began to retaliate by
instituting a steep price increase for its Windows 95 software.

Microsoft, which had charged IBM $9 per copy of early versions of
Windows, told IBM that it would have to pay much more for a copy of
Windows 95.

In addition, IBM would not be eligible for an $8 marketing rebate because
it was selling a rival operating system, he said. Negotiations between the
firms broke down in early 1995. They resumed only within weeks of the
Windows 95 launch in August, and the two companies agreed on terms
15 minutes before the product was unveiled, he said.

IBM eventually wound up paying about $46 per copy, which caused the
firm's operating system bill to jump to $220 million in 1996 from $40
million in 1995. Compaq and Dell Computer Corp., two of Microsoft's
closest allies, paid less than $40 each, according to industry sources.

"Microsoft told us repeatedly, 'Because you compete with us, you're going
to get unfavorable terms and conditions,' " Norris said.

Norris said the problems between the firms took a turn for the worse in
November 1994 at the Comdex computer trade show in Las Vegas,
when IBM executives notified Microsoft officials, including Gates, that
IBM would not abandon OS/2.

"In the meeting, I'm told Gates was surprised," Norris said. "He was
surprised because he didn't expect that to happen."

In the following weeks, Norris said, Microsoft notified IBM that "we
would be treated just like any other" PC maker. He also said IBM "was
cut off and uninvited to several [computer manufacturer] events" held by
Microsoft.

To support the allegations, IBM has given the government hundreds of
internal documents and Norris has turned over dozens of pages of
handwritten notes taken during his Microsoft negotiations, according to
sources close to the case. Norris, who works at an IBM facility at
Research Triangle Park, N.C., is scheduled to testify at the trial in the
second week in June.

During the deposition, Microsoft's Pepperman suggested that IBM was
responsible for the allegedly unfavorable treatment. He questioned Norris
about an internal IBM document that referred to Gates being upset that
IBM was conducting a "smear campaign" against Windows 95.

Pepperman also cited an audit Microsoft conducted of IBM that showed
IBM had failed to pay Microsoft about $50 million in Windows royalties.
Norris said his firm later paid $10 million to settle the dispute.

After the OS/2 dispute had subsided, Norris said, Microsoft in 1996
began to target other types of software that IBM was including on its PCs,
including Netscape Communications Corp.'s Internet browser and the
SmartSuite office application, which is made by Lotus Development
Corp., an IBM subsidiary, and competes with Microsoft's Office software
package.

"We were offered financial incentive from Microsoft to stop shipping
certain products," Norris said. "Microsoft repeatedly told us that as long
as we were shipping competitive products," Microsoft "will not treat you
the same as Compaq. You will suffer in terms of price."

But Pepperman noted that IBM did manage to get some of the things it
wanted in its negotiations with Microsoft, including the right to place a
backup copy of Windows on a CD-ROM disk that was distributed to
IBM customers. Said Norris: "It could have been worse."

© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company



To: ToySoldier who wrote (27063)5/29/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: Frederick Smart  Respond to of 42771
 
Novell Mindshare Lapse....

Prior to Brainshare I commented frequently that Novell had reached a "flux point". What does this mean?

Well, from where I sit, it means Novell had the opportunity to take the bull by the horns the really nail their mindshare to the world and Wall Street. This "mindshare" had been building for the past 1 1/2 years. Novell, "the underdog" was wearing it well, too. New forces, new energy, the sense of a new and powerful mission was building inside and outside Novell.

For a brief, if fleeting moment, this mindshare walked on the world stage at Brainshare and the world took notice. Novell's stock rallied strongly, and it looked as though we were off to the races.

Something happened along the way, however. And this is just me talking. But I have an intuitive "gut feel" for these things. I look at their pronoucements, weigh their follow-through and try to measure the level of "energy". After Brainshare something happened and I still haven't been able to puy my finger on it.

Forces inside Novell - perhaps the "Old Guard" - have seemed to co-opt this energy behind the growing mindshare. The problem is that this "energy" is "out there". It was building from without because the market was looking for a company to define, claim and seize a "new paradigm".

This new paradigm is what's defining a "new era". And the problem is that this "new era" has NOTHING to do with the "old era" of Novell.

For Schmidt, Stone and all the rest to claim this "new era" they need to open up Novell's entire business model to clients, end-users....INDIVIDUALS. But what this does is turn the Old Business model - "gotta come to me/us" - upside down. This means that the old Novell guard needs to step aside and completely new leadership, led by Schmidt, must step in.

This new technology paradigm that Directory-Centric technologies embraces requires a "giving up" to the end user the tools, reins and rights to control this new model. To do this, Novell's leadership must reorganize a completely "new world view" of where it wants to go and how it wants to get there.

All this stuff is very radical in nature. For the forces that are driving the Internet have NOTHING to do with anything proprietary. If there's mass, obstructions, arrogance, ego, restrictions.....the INDIVIDUAL will naturally seek and find other alternatives around these points of power and control.

My gut feel is that Novell's Old Guard is trying to control NDS in the same way they controlled NetWare in the 80's to early 90's. NOT!!!

Eric, it's time you assert and support a completely new - perhaps radical - management model which places the INDIVIDUAL at the core focus for everything Novell does from here on out. This means giving up, letting go, extending, sharing, serving the needs of millions upon millions of individuals who WANT more control, flexibility, time and trust to enter their day to day lives.

Again, this means you have to open up Novell's business model to the masses. Let mindshare build among the masses - among INDIVIDUALS - in ways that more seemlessly express this white-hot energy of FREEDOM that's sweeping the world thanks to the spawning forces of the Internet.

Jump in bed with INDIVIDUALS. Embrace all the twinky-eating, jolt-drinking garage entrepreneurs who could plant themselves squarely in the middle of the Directory-centrice movement and really DRIVE this revolution.

I want these green-pink-haired and nose clipped young renegades to "see" this vision and get their hands on these tools so they can fast create apps that really go to the heart of this new revolution of freedom and energy: serving others.

MEET NETWORK EMPOWER and GROW this vision among these new folks.

Then stand back and let this new viral, word-of-mouth community-building tapestry of technology apps and connections really beging rooting itself all over the world - within companies, associations, networks, clubs, cities, communities and neighborhoods.

This is just "my 2 cents" on the matter - humbly submitted.

Now I'll step off my soapbox, "let go", watch and listen with eager abandon......

GO!!



To: ToySoldier who wrote (27063)5/29/1999 1:53:00 PM
From: Frederick Smart  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42771
 
Replace "Business" with "Service"

Part of this "new era" requires that individuals assert themselves - in a variety of ways - to "build community" and mindshare for their ideas.

I invite those reading this thread to seek out your own examples of community throughout the Internet. I subscribe to a discussion organized by Paul Seigel who has been doing some really great work in this area. I think many of these efforts map very well into a potetial "new vision" for Novell which I believe - at the core - Schmidt accepts and supports.

For those so inclinded, feel free to subscribe to Paul's discussion for it may provide some insights about ways we can all work to support a new vision for Novell.

You will find my "Replace Busines w/ Service" piece below.....

///////////
LearningFOUNT//////////////////////////////////////////
-a discussion list about business strategy-
-an incubator for community-building ideas-

Paul "the soarING" Siegel, moderator
mailto:paul@learningfountain.com
Learning Fountains, learningfountain.com

Friday, May 28, 1999--------------Issue #061
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Welcome LearningFOUNT-neer:

Fred Smart has a RADICAL idea. You have extra time to think about
it because LearningFOUNT will not be published Monday, Memorial
Day. Happy holiday to those of you in the U.S.

Inspirational Quote:

"A GOAL is a dream with a deadline!"
-----Joan of St. Louis <info4u@earthlink.net>

Bonus Inspirational Quote:
(because I have no Controversial quote today)

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man"
-----William Shakespeare
-----Submitted by INSPIRE <inspire@inspire.infoadvn.com>

///In This Issue://///

Post #1 - Replace "Business" with "Service"
----------Fred Smart
Post #2 - Re: Strategy
----------Terri Robinson
Post #3 - Re: "Disintermediation"
----------Karl Kristianson

///Posting Note/////

Please send your posts, not to me, but to mailto:post@learningfountain.com.
Please include only a brief portion of the post you're referring
to, and keep your signature to 6 lines.

///Build Circulation/////

Do you have a Business Mailing List or Newsletter?

To build circulation, let us swap ads:
Your ad here; mine in your publication.

Send email to mailto:paul@learningfountain.com

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///Post #1/////

From: FKSmart@aol.com
Subject: Replace "Business" with "Service".....

This IS the revolution which is shaking the world right now.
"Being of service" is replacing "business" everywhere you look.

"Serving Others" is a new paradigm. How ironic, since it's always
been one of universal laws of the universe, so maligned, politicized
and controlled for selfish ends.

So here I predict that the word "Business" will be forever stained
and less and less regarded going forward.

What is "business"? BIG question. None of us could support
ourselves if in some small way we weren't of service to others.

But here's the catch and it's the trap which defines the world
as we know it.

Business as we know it provide service "only if there's a quid
pro quo". But where does that leave the truly creative types
who really live and dream and risk. In the Old Business model,
they were, all too often bludgeoned - sold out- stabbed, etc.
Big brother business moved in, secured the lock through their
proprietary marketing and distribution channels, patents, product
development, etc.

But remember in this "new era of business" anything smacking
of being proprietary, arrogant, closed, quid pro quo is avoided.
Been there, done that. There are other options....just cruise
the net and you'll find numerous examples of people banding together
to "be of service" to others - nothing expected in return. For
the "return" comes from the common pool of energy and spirit
that's out there. Give and get. And that's what's so exciting
about this new "service paradigm": wealth is truly unlimited
in this model. There are NO limits! Ever heard that before?

These open technologies know no mass. Like water flowing through
cracks among stones. That's all Old Business was too often -
stones on the way to somewhere where the waters of real truth,
spirit, freedom and creativity finally settled and flowed.

The Internet and open technologies, like a laser, unmask and
penetrate bureaucracy, politics, control and power.

The only thing that really matters in life is "serving others".
Call it anything you want: love, compassion, whatever.

So all the Kings have no clothes and it's going to take some
time for them to realize this. In the meantime, we have the
forces of millions of Thomas Paines, telling us this all makes
perfect "Common Sense". Thomas must be dancing a thousand jigs
right now. I named my second son after him and he was born on
the 4th of July - soon to be 2 years old.

So I'm just suggesting we replace the word "business" with the
word "service".

Serving others is the value foundation where the true energy
of freedom is expressed in all of its glory. For only when we
truly give do we get And, as the growth of the Internet is proving
every day, this technology maps the spiritual laws of the universe.
Everyone knows that if they give just a little bit on the Internet,
they will get back so much more though not necessarily from
the target of your gift.

This is not unlike what happens when community surfaces on the
Internet The human spirit is always open, feeling, intuitive,
seeking something new, a better way, a new world view.

I think we are right in the thick of defining a new world order
because this new world view will be recognized in more and more
places across the world as this light of energy and freedom finds
more areas of darkness.

And, humbly, it's all just about one core point of focus: The
individual.

The individual is KING! Very delicate and humbly so......

Take care,

Fred Smart