Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I read it also in sunday's globe. I'm surprized that DEC would do
    this. You think it would effect sales of DEC's currect offerings
    in a neg way.
     I am curious about the secret "box" of 500 megbyte non-disk storage
    device!

    This probably fits well in the Marketing conference but I'll try
    and address it here.
    
    Giving private presentations of unannounced products is not new.
    Not for DEC nor for any other company. The reason it's done it
    to try and get other (usually large) companies to fit our products
    in with their long range plans. We can't announce a product to the
    whole world if it's not ready. (Well we could but it wouldn't be
    right.) We can tell a few select customers what's coming so that
    when they plan for next year or the next few years they'll plan
    on us having the answers to their problems.
    
    Take the example of the workstation customer in .0. I'll assume
    that what happened was that the customer was leaning towards the
    competition for a large work station purchase because we didn't
    offer (as an announced product) what they needed. Now if we can
    convince them that we *will* have a product that will meet their
    needs if they'll wait just a bit we may get them to wait. You
    can't always just say, 'wait it's coming'. What you can do is say
    'Here look at this. It's almost ready. It's what you really want.'
    
    Personally non-disclosure presentations don't bother me. People
    who violate those agreements do but that's being covered in SOAPBOX.
    
    		Alfred

It was not "a few select customers".  By the end of the show they
were bringing somebody in every seven minutes.  (Earlier it was only
every fifteen minutes.)

    re: .2:  Well said, basically the reason we do non-disclosures.
    especially now that we are agressively pursuing the high performance
    systems marketplace, with 1-2 year lead times, for those multi-million
    dollar accounts, knowledge of our plans is important and of benefit
    to both organizations.
    
    re: .3: It WAS a select few. just because there were some people
    every seven minutes, does not dilute the audience. There was a
    selection process in place, and it was kept to. somewhere between
    30,000 and 50,000 customers came to DECWORLD '87. Only a few hundred
    came through the "sandbox".  In fact, the demand was quite high,
    and some of our organizations feedback was that the "tour guides"
    were rushing the customers. However, customers were oriented and
    questioned as to which areas would be of interest, and they were
    then toured through the applicable products/services areas.
    
    I still think that it was not a good thing for DECWORLD whose slogan
    includes "Digital Has It now", but am totally FOR non-disclosures
    in general. I deliver them all the time. (or at least did, before
    the new policies came to the fore).
    
    The key regarding non-disclosure, is CONTROL.
    
    Now, if customers then disclose, I am all for vigorous prosecution.
    
    David
    

    The decision to test the potential market acceptance of these products
    in the "sandbox" was carefully taken at the _highest_ levels in
    the corporation. There was very careful screening, qualification,
    and expectation management of the guests. The demos were carefully
    supported by very highly qualified technical experts who had been
    carefully briefed on how to handle key questions. Every effort was
    made to ensure that the guests understood that nothing here was
    a commitment. Dates, project names, pricing, and potential market
    names were carefully excised.
    
    The actual management of the security of the area was done by the
    sales management group that handles product introductions (the
    so-called product captains). Even most employees were not allowed
    in, just those on a "need to help" basis.

    
    
         It would seem quite clear to me that if 30,000 to 50,000 people
    saw these that someone would say something along the line sooner
    or later. Or at least it seems clear to me....
    
         Maybe it was DEC's way of letting IBM that we are *not* sitting
    idle with our hands folded across our laps......
                                              
                            Debbi                                
                  
                                             

    No, 30,000 to 50,000 didn't see these things. Only a few hundred
    (still a goodly number) of those 30-50,000 people did. Re-read .4.
    
    		Alfred

    
    
    RE: 399.7 
    
              Oooppppsss (blush).
    
    But still the same theory holds true.
    
                                       Debbi

    Given some of the words in this topic ("oath" and "prosecute" come to
    mind), I have become very curious to see the text of a non-disclosure
    agreement.
    
    As far as the idea goes, yeah, it's industry-wide, even business-wide
    (outside of the computer industry).  Deviously used, I think it can
    influence customer buying decisions for years to come ("No thanks, I'm
    going to wait for a Monadnock machine from your competitor") and bust
    up development efforts in competitors ("Oh, no!  Our competitor already
    has us beat!  We'll have to start from scratch.")  
    
    I'm confident that we're not using this weapon deviously. 

    I've seen them, but not in the last few months.  For almost 2 years,
    I was giving non-disclosure presentations to customers about the
    BI (how it worked) and the BI machines.  
    
    The agreement says something like "We're telling you this now, so
    that you can make an informed business decision.  In signing this,
    you acknowledge that this is proprietary informatin, and as such
    you will not disclose it until this information is publicly released
    by Digital.  Digital reserves the right to change specifications
    as needed, or to cancel this program in its entirety."
    
    
    If I can dig one up, I'll type it in.
    
    
    -bill

	RE: .9 by DELNI::JONG "Steve Jong/NaC Pubs"

�    Given some of the words in this topic ("oath" and "prosecute" come to
�    mind), I have become very curious to see the text of a non-disclosure
�    agreement.

	I believe I used the word "oath". To me, there is no
	difference in the seriousness between a written agreement 
	and an oath. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but if I
	sign a document saying I won't reveal details about anything
	I learn while in this room and won't discuss it with anyone, 
	that's just as effective as if I had taken an oath.

	Sam

    re: oath...
    
    A verbal contract is as good as the paper its written on...
    
    BobW

    Re .12:
    
    change "verbal" to "oral"; both spoken and written communications
    are "verbal"; they both contain verbs. :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: .12, .13
In fact, in law, a spoken contract is every bit as valid as a written one
(with some specific exceptions).  Note that "validity" is an independent
concept from "provability":  If you have a written contract, you can show
it to the court; if all you have is oral agreement, you COULD get into all
sorts of arguments about what, if anything, was actually said.  But given
an agreement on WHAT was said, the words are (generally) binding.

BTW, the biggest exception to this is among the oldest statutes in the common
law, and goes under the confusing name of "The Statue of Frauds".  It says
that an oral contract for future performance for an amount exceeding $1000
[the limit was presumably different in England!] is not valid.  (Or something
like that.)  Other exceptions have been made by statute, generally for
consumer protection.  Also, written contracts usually include a clause that
invalidate any oral agreement that may have been made at the same time.

As to the specific case of the "sandbox":  This wasn't a "non-disclosure"
meeting of the usual sort.  Whatever the strict legalisms involved, things
shown under normal non-disclosure are generally highly likely to be released
as products, more or less in the form shown.  THe "sandbox" was, as I under-
stand it, shown with the very clear indication that what was being shown were
advanced development ideas.  We were trying to get across some of the possibili-
ties.

Even normal "non-disclosure" information leaks, and everyone knows it.  In
general, people will talk about what they heard at a non-disclosure meeting
in fairly general terms - they aren't likely to pass on exact features and
prices (though that happens) - but if they are talking to a colleague about
a problem that will be solved by the "non-disclosed" product, very few won't
drop some sort of a hint about "Wait 6 months" or "Wait for the new frobozz
package before deciding".  If a non-disclosure presentation contains a lot of
specific information, then when we see vague generalities floating around we
don't see  the non-disclosure as having been violated.  On the other hand, if
the non-disclosure itself was mainly generalities, there won't be much that
won't leak out.  Given the nature of the sandbox presentations - fairly gene-
ral discussions of exciting, non-near-term ideas presented to a fairly large
number of people - to think that it would NOT all leak out is just foolish.

							-- Jerry

    Sounds like some facts are in order here. I worked in the "sandbox"
    for the full two weeks of DECworld, so I have some knowledge of
    what this thing was all about.
    
    First, it was known internally as "Ken's Sandbox" -- after the man
    who wanted it, and got it. Ken has the authority, of course, and
    he is the officer responsible. The area was officially known as
    the Advanced Technology Display, or ATD. We were very careful to
    show "concepts", not "products." Those of us who demo'ed stuff there
    always emphasized that these were just conceptual evaluations that
    showed the areas of technology we were exploring. We promised nothing,
    we gave no dates, no prices, and not much hardcore information.
    
    The people who came through were very high-level customers, guided
    by their account managers and someone from Stow. Ken came through
    with a group from Ford. It was crowded, but there was sometimes
    8-10 minutes between groups of 6-10 customers.
    
    It was my good luck that I was demo'ing that high-performance
    workstation that the Globe quoted some customer as saying was better
    than anything he'd ever seen. All the customers who saw this system
    were in awe -- it was very exciting.
    
    As for whether it was a good or bad idea.....well, we'd have to
    ask the proprietor of Ken's Sandbox. I think it was a good idea,
    for what that's worth. Most of the customers who came through were
    very serious, important DEC accounts. We were showing them a glimpse
    of the future; we weren't trying to freeze them into inaction while
    they waited for "concepts" that may or may not become products.
    If anything, the sandbox was a courtesy to our best customers, to
    take them into our confidence, and to enhance their warm feelings
    that their decision to go with Digital is a good decision that will
    pay off for a long time. On that level, it worked.
    
    As for Evans and Sutherland spilling the beans.......ugh! I really
    wish they hadn't done that. But that's not a function of the ATD:
    they could have done that anytime, anyplace.
    
    Dave C

    Several points:
    
    One, it may have been billed during "creation" phase as a concepts,
    but the fact remains, that *EVERYTHING* in that room will be a product
    in the relatively short term. Just not short enough for normal
    non-disclosure cycles.
    
    Two, the fact that the information got out to the press, WAS BAD,
    IS BAD, and WILL ALWAYS BE bad. The reason for "normal" non-disclosures
    is to prevent (or make very difficult) this sort of thing from
    happening. We all KNEW that the press would be all over DECWORLD
    like ants on honey, of course they would find customer that were
    at the sandbox and extract the information. Again, that is why it
    was bad to have it there.
    
    It was a rumor that it was Kens idea (because of Cheap 6) but that
    is not actually the case. Rather, it was someone (who for obvious
    non-CLDs on my part shall remain nameless) who was using Kens name
    in vain.
    
    DECWORLD '87, "DIGITAL HAS IT NOW!"  (well maybe, sorta...)
    
    It was a bad idea (in my opinion)
    
    David
    

        Re: .16
        
>    One, it may have been billed during "creation" phase as a concepts,
>    but the fact remains, that *EVERYTHING* in that room will be a product
>    in the relatively short term. Just not short enough for normal
>    non-disclosure cycles.
        
        Most, but not all.  During the training to work in the sandbox
        we were told that there was no commitment to convert some of the
        items presented into products (one item was explicitly mentioned
        during the training as being in that category). 
        
        In general, most of the items displayed were expected to be
        announced within a year of DECWorld. 
        
        The major complaint in our group was that our product was not
        mentioned in the article in the Boston Globe article.  We have
        already made a program announcement of our Ethernet Security
        System, so we don't care if it is discussed in general terms in
        the paper.  Because of sandbox rules, we could not use the name
        of our product in the sandbox, but it was mentioned by name on
        the main floor. 
        
        					B.J.

re: several last

And it is inappropriate to speculate in this file about when, if, what
unnannounced products might be products etc.

Just because you aren't naming things (and one note does in fact use
a code name), pointing at an article in the Globe and then supplying
your opinions, informed or otherwise, about product schedules is just
a way around the rule.

Moderators?

- greg

        Re: .19
        
> Just because you aren't naming things (and one note does in fact use
> a code name),
        
        I mentioned `Ethernet Security System' in .17, but DEC's
        intention to release one of these has been announced publicly
        (and one public mention, by a VP, mentioned a time frame).
        
        [There was even a public announcement by a corporate official
        that we already had such a system, but it was a slip and luckily
        was ignored by the audience.] 
        
        I didn't notice any other use of code names, did I miss something?
        
        					B.J.

    re: 399.19
    
    > Just because you aren't naming things (and one note does in fact use
    > a code name),
    
    399.0 "VAX/VMS 5.0, 'symmetric multiprocessing'" is unannounced but
    completely and utterly discussed by authorized spokespeople for
    Digital without detail, pricing, delivery, or a commitment to fill
    orders.
    
    399.0 "Mayfair" Well... it's always been "cool" to use the internal
    development name for a product in preference to its marketing name
    or ordering code.  Personally, I find the practice more confusing
    than cool, but I always seem to cross the grain of Digital's culture.

re: .20, .21

Nope, wasn't either of those that I was refering too.  I can't find
it now but I notice .18 is deleted or hidden, so it was probably
in that reply.

- greg

    .21:
    
�    399.0 "Mayfair" Well... it's always been "cool" to use the internal
�    development name for a product in preference to its marketing name
�    or ordering code.  ...
    
    Some of us get used to the internal development name -- in most
    cases they predate the marketing name by many months.  As far as
    ordering code goes, I doubt that you'll find many people who can
    tell you the difference between a VS270-A2 and an SU-LV59D-EK;
    but almost anyone would look at them and say, "Yup, there's a couple
    of 'GPXs!"
    
    Dick