Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:28:33 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <317AC4A1.6625FEE1@lambert.org>
References: <31785FD3.214C1457@lambert.org> <stephenkDq63JA.8JK@netcom.com> <31797567.1943F730@lambert.org> <stephenkDq7ADH.Aq@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14726 comp.os.linux.development.system:22012 comp.os.linux.x:29940 comp.os.linux.hardware:36945 comp.os.linux.setup:51567 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:770 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3416 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3265 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17887
Stephen Knilans wrote:
] >No, I'm a systems software engineer who knows enough about how
] >businesses operate solely on the basis of economics to know
] >that the only argument that will change Matrox's policy is
] >an economic one, and you aren't making it.
]
] Then WHY did you suggest that people buy their cards "for leverage"?
Reread my posts. I suggested no such thing.
I suggested that people reserve judgement pending a policy change.
That is, they should not decide to "never in the future buy a
Matrox card", like you advocate, because the policy could be
changed, and a policy change should reward Matrox for positive
behaviour.
This is a 2x2 Marketing matrix, the kind MBA's (people not like
you who are competent to run companies) use to make economic
decisions.
Stephan's way Terry's way
,---------------.---------------.
Existing Policy | No sales | No sales |
`---------------+---------------'
New policy | No sales | Yes sales |
`---------------'---------------'
Do you understand now that you are not providinging them with
any incentive to change policy?
Let's look at another one:
Result of non-disclosure is:
Protect's IP Doesn't
,---------------.---------------.
Existing policy | keep IP | lose IP |
`---------------+---------------'
New Policy | lose IP | lose IP |
`---------------'---------------'
So the existing policy is a result of their belief that it
provides intellectual property protection, to give them
competitive advantage in their market.
Your job, Mr. Phelps, should you accept it, is to convince
them that matix two is based on false assumptions:
1) They already have patent protection
2) They already have copyright protection
3) The "exiting policy"/"keep IP" matrix element
should also read "lose IP" because the policy
offers no protection against reverse engineering,
in the EU if not the US.
Now lets combine a change/no change with an incentive/no
incentive:
Incentive <= Incentive >
implement cost implement cost
,---------------.---------------.
IP loss potential | Existing | Existing |
`---------------+---------------'
No IP loss potential| Existing | New |
`---------------'---------------'
So additionally, your job must be to ensure that there is
still positive incentive after you convince them that EU
engineers can run "Sourcer" from "V Communications, Inc."
on their drivers to document the the card interface which
they aren't disclosing, and can do so with no legality
problems whatsoever.
--
Feel free to quote the above to Matrox, who you've only, by
your own admission, talked *about*, never *to*.
If you don't get it now, I guess I'm done with this thread
anyway.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.