Conference 7.286::digital

Is this a first for Digital?  How strained have out relations with,
say, Sonny Monosson ever been, by comparison with this?
				/AHM/THX

    I trust a quiet phone call was tried first? Not that I'd ever get
    told either way...

    It was suggested in SOAPBOX that the action may have been in response
    to the publication of what are purported to be VAXstation 2000
    production costs in the 2/9/87 issue of Digital Review.  Digital
    Review regularly publishes a large amount of what they claim to
    be inside information about various DEC products and development
    projects.  As an example, see the column by "Charlie Matco" on the
    last page of every issue.
    
    	- Jerry

    I recall that in the spring and early summer of 1984 Sonny Monosson
    was on the outs with DEC. I was working in corporate in W. Concord
    at the time, and although I don't remember what he'd done, I do
    remember that Sonny was "cut off" as someone in PR said.
    
    At DECtown in Aug. '84 Sonny stood up during some big meeting and
    delivered a ringing endorsement of DEC, our direction, our products,
    etc. Then he was "un-cut off." I had fun writing an article in DECsell
    about it that I headlined "Monosson Recants"
    
    As for the Digital Review situation, I think it was triggered by
    their publication of the VS2000 production costs and some sales
    projections. Publication of this sort of information can be very
    damaging to Digital in a very hotly contested market segment. I
    agree with the embargo. It's really the only way we can fight back
    against this sort of leak.
    
    As for what it does to DR -- I imagine it will cause some pain.
    Kind of like all the major car makers refusing to talk to Car &
    Driver.

        .5 matches what I heard out here in the field.
        
        This memo doesn't say we can't still SUBSCRIBE to the Digital
        Inquirer, just that noone within Digital should give them any
        information for any reason. Unless you work in Corporate Public
        Relations, you shouldn't be doing this anyway. 

    While I agree with the embargo, I question how much impact it will
    have on the type of articles we are objecting to.  They are obviously
    not getting the information through official channels, and I don't
    imagine the embargo will stifle those who have been feeding them
    information under the table.
    
    I wonder how long it will be before they print a copy of the memo
    which appeared in .0?
    
    	- Jerry

    
    	Having been a TV Reporter in a previous life (before DEC), I'm
    having fun watching all this.  NOTHING is more pleasing to a news
    organization than being "banned" by someone.  It's a compliment!
    It's also a challenge.  Now we will see how good Digital Review
    REALLY is.  If they can still get what they want, Corporate P.R.
    has problems.  Any reporter who's worth anything will ALWAYS be
    able to find out what he/she wants to know.  The issue becomes one
    of timing, i.e., who will be the first to release the information--
    DEC or the Digital Review?
    
    	DEC is working (to my mind) with a mental handicap.  It's
    traditional attitude towards the Press has always been to ignore
    it, if possible.  In my Reporter days, we always described DEC's
    P.R. policy as "Go hide in the woods and don't rock the boat."
    The problem is, DEC is just too big to successfully pull off such
    a policy.
    
    	So, I score it:
    
    			Digital Review - 1
    			DEC	       - 0
    
    							-Steve

    RE .9
    
    	That was exactly my reaction to this.  We should work with these
    folks, not provoke them into really going for us!
    
    As we grow larger we *must* learn how to deal with the press, even
    the *really nosy* press!

    Why do we have such a problem with the press anyway? I've heard
    or read various grumblings about the Boston Globe, Digital Review,
    DEC Professional, etc. and cannot understand why we're so antago-
    nistic & combative about the coverage. As .8 pointed out, cutting
    off DR will only encourage them to greater excesses. 
                                                         
    Hmmm...maybe DEC should offer its own "mug" for those employees
    who can't keep their moth shut. When C. Matco contacts them, they
    contact DEC PR which gives them the mug & the party line for Mr.
    Matco. Doesn't have to be disinformation either...
    
                                                         

    Perhaps KO should hire on Sean Penn to handle the press.
    
    Jim

    I wonder...
    
    Are satellite transmissions (Easynet and/or DTN) encrypted?
    
    	- Jerry

    No.

    
    I suspect the message that was sent out restricting DIGITAL REVIEW
    was meant as much for internal consumption as external. The
    new UVAX costs were only the latest of a long stream of things
    that **looked like** they came straight from documents with 
    intentionally restricted distribution... (neither confirming
    nor denying the veracity of the info).
    
    Maybe this controversy will encourage people to reread the 
    employment agreements they signed... instead of the latest
    DR to find out if Charlie Matco got the Yellowbook quote 
    right...
    
    My impression is we are currently the leakiest company in the industry,
    including IBM (where I suspect many of the "leaks" are planned.)
                          
      John
    
    ps. Yes, certain of our customer base should probably reread their
    non-disclosure agreements as well.

    DR's publishing of the costs table is the most popular rumor
    of why they are being cut off, but memory is short - DR published
    that same table last summer.  It's pretty obvious it came from an
    internal document.
    					Steve

RE: .15

Many of our "leaks" are planned, too.  I was at a meeting once where some
marketers were discussing what, how, and when to leak information to the press
about a forthcoming product.

--PSW

    This can only come off looking bad for us.  This is the same game that
    is played in Washington --- when YOU leak something to the press, it's
    a good thing; but when the press gets hold of something that you don't
    want them to have, it's suddently Time To Stop All The Leaks. 
    
    We rely on the media to bang our drum for us, and we give them tidbits
    from time to time (read: leak) in order to keep the interest level
    up.  Specifically, magazines devoted to us (e.g., Digital Review)
    helped to give us an aura of being a big-time manufacturer early
    in our corporate lifetime.

Re .18:

Actually, when someone leaks information to the press, it is a violation of
Personnel policy 6.30 (Publication Policy) unless the PR department is
involved.  I don't know how often that occurs.

On the other hand, when the press gets hold of something that we don't want
them to have by rifling dumpsters, eavesdropping in bars, and using inside
informers, it may be industrial espionage.

I feel that freedom of the press is justified far more by reports about high
miscarriage rates among semiconductor fabrication line employees, than by
publication of proprietary figures about production line costs.  (Not that
I am aware of any use of investigative reporting on the miscarriage issue).
I might feel differently if I was about to invest heavily in Digital
or its products, but I doubt it.

Any editorial claims notwithstanding, it is probably safe to assume that
any massive disclosures by DR of Digital's trade secrets are primarily
motivated by the desire for greater circulation, advertising income and
attendant profits rather than some altruistic devotion to the inquiring
minds of their subscribers.
				/AHM

    re: .19:
    
>    Any editorial claims notwithstanding, it is probably safe to assume that
>any massive disclosures by DR of Digital's trade secrets are primarily
>motivated by the desire for greater circulation, advertising income and
>attendant profits rather than some altruistic devotion to the inquiring
>minds of their subscribers.


    Gee, just like our motivation when we purposely leak something to
    the press.

    
    jdr

    re .13:
    
    I recently noticed that our DVN satellite transmissions are scrambled
    (just like HBO!).
    
    							--- Neal

    re: Scrambling
    
    DVN may be scrambled, but as Andy noted, our computer links are
    in the clear.
    
    re: Leaking/Espionage
    
    DEC is a conservative company, and the official corporate policy
    sounds a lot like conservative Washington (as has been pointed out).
    We're also a little schizophrenic: a few weeks ago DEC released
    a rather serious study on pregnant women in board assembly.  It
    seems as though we've gone from openness to paranoia.

    re: .22:
    
    Let's keep personal politics out of this.  My comparison to Washington
    leak-games has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals.  It is
    true of either type of administration, senator, or congressman.  We're
    talking about the manipulation of the media, the drive for which
    crosses all lines. 

    'nuff said.

Re .22:

>... a few weeks ago DEC released
>    a rather serious study on pregnant women in board assembly.

Are you referring to the health study of HL semiconductor fabrication
workers discussed in 241.*, or is this something new?  I doubt that
any of the Hudson people worked on PC boards.
				/AHM/THX

    re: .24

    I was referring to the health study you mentioned (note 241).  I
    didn't have reference to it in front of me, so the details were
    hazy.
    
    re: .23

    Washington IS politics.  Almost every president that I know of,
    with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, complained about the press
    and also sought to get at least one reporter or syndicate banned
    from the press conferences.  [Good trivia question here: are there
    any presidents other than TR that didn't try this in this century?]
    DEC seems to be reacting the same way.  If that's political bias,
    so be it.
    
    The makers of Tylenol (Johnson & Johnson?) showed that being candid
    with the public is the best way to salvage a bad situation.  I don't
    think Digital Review should be invited back with open arms, but
    banning only adds to their credit--as previous repies mentioned.

    With all this focus on how notority is effective publicity,
    has anyone thought about what banning might do to advertising
    revenue?  This is what keeps a magazine afloat.  How many of
    our CMPs, distributors, and OEMs want to advertise in a 
    magazine that we've banned?  

    The following may be considered a FLAME, but does hold content.
    
    $ SET MODE/FLAME
    
    I was think about this issue as I was driving in this morning,
    listening to the radio go on and on about who in Washington is going
    to resign, who will replace them, etc.
    
    The type of reporting Digital Review has been doing is very similar
    to the type of reporting done by the Washington Post, New York Times,
    or any other politically active publication.
    
    However, there is a BIG difference here. The US government is supposed
    to be working for us, it's citizens. It is the job of the media
    to inform the masses of problems in that system.
    
    Digital Equipment works for it's stock holders. It competes in the
    computer industry against other companies for a share of the market.
    It is not Digital Reviews job to provide information to the other
    competitors and customers of our industry. Providing company
    confidential information such as cost of goods on a product is
    Industrial Espionage!
    
    Digital Reviews "job" is to be an industry monitor, reporting on
    the events of the industry based on press releases and educated
    predictions. Not Industrial Espionage disguised as "Investigative
    Reporting".
    
    $ SET MODE/NOFLAME
    							--- Neal
    
                                                                   

From: <Irrelevant>
Subj: <distribution list deleted>


DIGITAL REVIEW/February 23, 1987

RUMOR ROUNDUP by Charlie Matco

	The champagne flowed freely last week in Syracuse, N.Y., as my 
pals at Glason Technical Services celebrated their crucial role in the 
deliverance of the America's Cup from antipodean exile.  But I soon 
discovered that the wages of early-morning imbibing included a 
world-class headache that steadily grew worse during a turbulent 
flight back to Beantown.

	My neuralgia vanished immediately, however, when I came across 
a sheaf of papers tucked into the seatback in front of me.  The 
documents must have hailed from the very highest levels of C. Matco's 
favorite computer company, because they included a detailed 
description of DEC's evolving four-tier workstation strategy.  More 
importantly, the wayward documentation thoroughly revitalized the 
much-vaunted C. Matco Unannounced Products File.

	Within the next two years, it's almost certain that DEC 
workstations, like aviation fuel, will be available in a variety of 
octane -- and price -- ranges.  At the low end, DEC is likely to 
target PC and timesharing users by crossbreeding the VAXstation 2000 
with a VT300-series terminal to yield a diskless, bounded VAX 
"desktop terminal workstation" whose use will be restricted to 
networks and Local Area VAXclusters.

	Code-named VAXterm, the bargain-basement workstation is said 
to sport a 15-inch monitor that offers 1,024-by-824-pixel resolution.  
The VAXterm's computational and graphics horsepower will be provided 
by MicroVAX II and Dragon chips, while paging and swapping will be 
conducted across the Ethernet.

	Although the list price has yet to be determined, the 
workstation will be optimized for low cost.  In fact, an old college 
chum of mine recently suggested that a $4,000 VAXterm would fulfill 
Ken Olsen's promise of a completely compatible VAX family whose price 
and power span a thousandfold.

	Technical and professional users will develop an affinity for 
DEC's $5,000-to-$30,000 desktop workstation line, currently 
exemplified by the VAXstation 2000.

	But wait, there's more -- sometime next year, DEC plans to 
unveil a VAXstation 2000 follow-on that will use the CVAX chip set to 
provide 2 to 3 million instructions per second (MIPS) of desktop 
computing power.  The so-called "VAXstar II" is likely to be available 
with 15-inch and 19-inch monitors, both of which will feature 
razor-sharp, 1,280-by-1,024-pixel resolution to give users the "big 
picture".

	In addition, the turbocharged graphics VAXstation should come 
in one-, four- and eight-plane configurations and offer one and a half 
to four times the graphics performance of the VAXstation 2000.

	Engineers and designers who place price and performance on an 
equal footing will be the logical buyers of some forthcoming midrange 
DEC workstations that will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$20,000 to $40,000 and offer powerful 3-D graphics as well as 
extensibility in storage and I/O options.

	The first member of the new midrange workstation line just 
might be the GPX II, which is due out in late 1988.  A senior 
workstation developer recently boasted that the GPX II will rely on a 
new synchronous VAX multiprocessor chip set to deliver three to six 
times the performance of a VAXstation 2000.

	My loquacious pal added that the GPX II will be available in 
12- and 24-plane versions, both of which will use double buffering and 
a geometric accelerator to provide five to eight times the graphics 
performance of a VAXstation 2000.

	Last but not least is the $40,000-to-$100,000 high-end 
workstation market, a niche that's likely to receive plenty of 
attention when DEC lets the Lynx out of the cage, hopefully in time 
for some last-minute Christmas gift-giving.

	The Lynx workstation should be just the ticket for the 
well-heeled senior researcher, engineer or molecular modeler who 
craves mass quantities of graphics horsepower.  The Lynx is said to be 
based on a VAX 8200 host subsystem that uses at least three MicroVAX 
II CPUs as well as a new wrinkle in interprocessor mass transit -- a 
so-called structure memory bus that provides real-time dynamic 
rendering of 3-D wireframe and shaded polygonal models at more than 
five times the speed of competitive products.

	A proprietary geometric accelerator that redlines at 100 
Mflops is the secret weapon that lets the Lynx display real-time 3-D 
images at 30 frames per second through 56 bit planes on a 19-inch, 
16-million-pixel resolution monitor.  DEC plans to included such 
goodies as 4MB of dual-ported graphics memory and real-time 
anti-aliasing and depth-queuing.  Also included will be a hefty price 
tag -- one DEC developer hinted that the new high-end system is 
expected to cost as much as a pair of Porsche 928Ses.

	Even though DEC's new workstation line probably won't be 
firmed up for a while, you can rest assured that a Charlie Matco 
designer coffee mug will ideally complement everything from the 
VAXterm to the Lynx and beyond.  To toast DEC's continued success with 
one of these limited-edition beauties, just phone your tips into the 
rumor hotline at (617) 375-4300 or upload your information at MATCO 
on MCI Mail.


    
    Reproduced without permission.

    OK, I'm not proud -- what's a geometric accelerator?
    
    As far as finding stuff in the seat pocket, you'd expect that the
    cleaning & maintenance people would clean them occasionally.
    
    Dick
    

    A friend who works here in ZK recently got his application for a free
    sub. to DR returned because under "How many of each processor?" he
    replied "Lots of each".  The application was hand-addressed to him.  It
    had been opened by someone before he got it.
    
    Do the security people really think that they'd send him a letter
    saying something like, "Thanks for all that confidential material you
    sent us last time, it was great!"?
    
    Scott

    I'm waiting for Security to make Coffee Mug raids! :-)
    
    							--- Neal

    
    
    I'm not at all sure that leaking things that might rebound to our
    advantage is official corporate policy. I'm told there are strictures 
    against "planned leaks" of any kind, whatever you may have seen in
    past personal experience.
    
    Moreover, if you believe Mr. Matco really happened to sit where
    someone left a sheaf of papers on a plane, or that he happened to
    be in a certain bar or pizza joint writing furiously as someone
    read a confidential DIGITAL document at the top of his/her voice, there
    is a bridge between two sections of New York City I have for sale...
    
    "Matco" gets a good part of his information from DIGITAL employees
    who either telephone him, send him mail over a public net, or send
    him xerox copies in the mail... these are not acts of stupidity,
    they are acts that display deliberate malice towards the company 
    where they "earn" their livelihood. Each of these individuals signed
    an employee agreement which covers this type of behavior.
    
    It is my fervent hope that we catch any and all of these people
    and make an example of them, in court if necessary. No kidding. 
    
       John
    
    

    Wow, that was fast
    
    
    The reproduction of Matcos column came from my boss, and was sent
    to the workstation engineering group manager. (yesterday!)
    
    
    I really think it's time to stop this.  Worksystems is now (or shortly)
    going to go through a security audit.  We've got to stop this stuff
    like was in Charlie Matcos column this week.  THIS IS SENSITIVE
    INFORMATION.   Some of the code words that he used haven't even
    been widely distributed through the corporation and he has them.
     
    Another thing he does (Matco) all of the time is imply that all
    DEC engineers are easy targets for a couple of beers, and then they;ll
    spill their guts.  this attitude comes out in almost all of his
    articles.   Every engineer in Digital shoudl be offended by this
    and write a  letter to Digital Review complaining about it.  (but
    are we allowed to?)
    
    
    -bill

>    "Matco" gets a good part of his information from DIGITAL employees
>    who either telephone him, send him mail over a public net, or send
>    him xerox copies in the mail... these are not acts of stupidity,
>    they are acts that display deliberate malice towards the company 
>    where they "earn" their livelihood.

	How do you know this? If you know of any specific instances of
	such action, report them to Security immediately. Otherwise,
	please refrain from speculative accusations against your
	co-workers.
	
	Mike

    
    
    awhile back in this notefile (I believe), an incident was brought
    up about two people discussing information in a bar. A female
    Deccie cautioned the two to knock it off, (maybe a little too
    stronly). Some of us defended her action, while others
    said she should have minded her own business. This is what
    the individual was trying to prevent.
    
    I think examples like this are prime reasons why we should watch
    what we talk about while out of the buildings. It is very easy
    for some people with the proper experience to catch a few words
    hear and there, and put classified information together. Before
    you know it our trade secrets are on the street, and in print.

    re: -2 and -1
    
    Speculative or not, do you know of any other means by which
    someone could get a word for word quotation of considerable
    length from a document with limited distribution? Not just
    once but many times?
    
    And don't tell me matco is going through the trash... this
    is serious. I'd rather offend you than have it continue while
    the civil libertarians excuse it with a wave of the hand.
    
       John
                 

    re: .33
    
    Let me get the straight.  Is it VT300, VAXterm, CVAX, VAXstar II,
    GPX II, or Lynx that we're supposed to pretend our customers
    and prospects that aren't products under development?
    
    All of them were mentioned by Charlie Matco.

    
    None of those "products" have been announced.  So, I'd just as soon
    *NOT* see a discussion of which of those "products" might some day
    be products in this conference.
    
							    	-mr. bill

     ALL,
     
     Due to all the  leaks  of  sensitive  engineering details about new,
     unannounced/under-development products to Charlie Matco  of  DIGITAL
     REVIEW, Corporate PR & Corporate Security  are  making an attempt to
     warn us to be very careful about  what  we  say and where we say it.
     [If you are unfamiliar with what is happening:    On  23  Feb.  they
     published  some engineering specs on three products which are  under
     development  (and  unannounced),  refering  to  them  by  codenames.
     Earlier, they published  the  manufacturing cost breakdown of one of
     our new products.  As you can see, either DR has an internal source,
     or they have moles at the Maynard Town dump!]
     
     My Group Manager just forwarded  the  following memo to us and I ask
     that each of us understand the  potential  damage  to  DEC  of  such
     leaks.  If we each do our  part,  we can help ensure that the future
     of our Company continues on an upswing.

     Thanks (time for me to get off my soapbox!).
     
     Regards,
     
     Len

	Message-class: DECMAIL-MS
	From:	NAME: CODISPOTI
		INITLS: JOE
		FUNC: CORP PUBLIC RELATIONS
		ADDR: CFO1-1/M18
		TEL: 251-1031 <5365@DECMAIL@PEN@CFO>
	
	Posted-date: 25-Feb-1987
	
	To:	INFOSECURITY:: 
	To:	MARCOM MANAGERS:: 
	To:	PR LIST EUR:: 
	To:	PR LIST GIA:: 
	To:	PRSTAFF:: 
	To:	PR_COUNCIL:: 
	
	Cc:	WIN HINDLE @CORE
	
	Subject: CONFIDENTIALITY


	AS COMMUNICTIONS PROFESSIONALS WE RECEIVE AND HAVE ACCESS TO A LARGE 
	AMOUNT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.  WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING IT 
	CONFIDENTIAL.  OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS WE WILL ALL BE EXPOSED TO 
	A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES FROM CORPORATE SECURITY ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT 
	ISSUE.  IN THE MEANTIME LET US ALL WORK TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY, OUR 
	PROPERTY.  SOME SUGGESTIONS:

	o  Don't leave confidential information unattended in your office or 
	on your desk. According to security, 20% of the people in any facility 
	on a given day are NOT DIGITAL EMPLOYEES.  At night this figure can be 
	as high as 90%.  Lock it up or use the security discard bins when 
	you're finished with it.
	
	o  Making an internal presentation?  Include a line on all charts and 
	all documents that this is "For Internal Use".  Corporate Security is 
	working on new guidelines for classification of information.  You 
	might as well get in the habit of marking your information 
	accordingly.
	
	o  The network is not as secure as we may think.  How sensitive is the 
	material you are sending electronically?  How many people do you 
	really want to get it?  How critical is it that the recipient receive 
	it at electronic speed?  Is there a more secure way?
	
	o  How many people really need to be on your distribution lists?  Do 
	they all have a need to know?  (You all need to know about this!)
	
	o  Where do you have lunch?  Conversations in restaurants, airplanes, 
	etc. are just likely to breach confidentiality as anywhere.  Be very 
	alert to what you discuss in public.
	
	
	Just a few ideas.  Security is serious.
	
	REGARDS. 
	
	JOE

    We work in a fairly free atmosphere, and generally have only minor problems
    in getting the information we need to do our jobs.
    
    However the problem with leaks such as the recent ones is that they
    often lead to a security backlash. Currently, regrettably, security
    is often lax. But I would be concerned about the opposite. Having worked
    in truly secure environments I certainly can vouch for the fact that
    it is stifling in many ways. Having to provide detailed justification
    of "need to know" before receiving information slows progress down,
    and can lead to many problems.
    
    If these leaks were to lead to a genuinely secure environment in the
    development areas of the company then much of the way of life that we
    know and love here at Digital would, at the very least, be highly
    endangered, if not lost forever.
    
    Think: 
    
    total clean desk policy (cleaners *might* be industrial spies :-)
                                                                  
    all bags searched as you leave the premises.
    
    positive id check before gaining admission                    
    
    no outside phone calls without operator intervention and call logging.
    
    no home terminals
    
    machines in engineering facilities not on a net connected to machines
    in field locations.                       
    
    etc etc etc (and last but by no means least it probably means the end
    of VAXnotes as a source of information for field specialists).        
    
    No: I hope they find and eliminate the leak ASAP. Without a security
    backlash destroying the culture I love.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    
    

      If DEC were a nasty company, they would have employees feed
    Charlie Matco deliberately incorrect information.  If DR reg-
    ularly published incorrect information, it would soon lose its
    credibility.  As long as they continue to correctly print 
    secrets about DEC products, they will prosper.  
    
      Let me say also that I believe the above scenario is unethical
    and thus should not be done.  However, feeding correct product
    information to DR is also unethical, besides being against corp-
    orate policy.
    
    Greg
    

    Re security leaks:
    
    There are at least two other notes in this conference concerning
    leaks and contacts with the press.
    
    Security concerning corporate matters is important, and leaks should
    be plugged.
    
    Contact with press should be through Public Relations just to help
    prevent leaks from taking place.  This is covered in Personnel Policies
    and Procedures.
    
    "Deliberate leaks," are not approved, and in some cases could result
    in legal difficulties (e.g., S.E.C. action).  If anyone suggests
    doing such a thing, discourage him or her and direct such a person
    to Public Relations of Investor Relations, depending upon what they're
    thinking of leaking.
    
    Re the notification:
    
    I for one hope that it will sensitize Digital people about what it is
    appropriate to talk about publicly.
    
    Re disinformation:
    
    A very poor policy.  Silence is far better.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    According to some friends in the DEC Rag world, Charlie Matco does
    not exist. The column with his by line is however written by one
    person.

    ----
        
    Most likely, information is not leaking out of a small number of
    large leaks. My bet would be that a little bit of information is
    leaking out of a lot of small holes.
    
    In a recent Matco column, he said the CVAX was 2-3 MIPS. I don't
    even know what a CVAX is. Let's say the following happens:
    
    1. The Matco person is talking to someone at DECUS. He asks if there
    is perhaps a faster MicroVAX in the future. A DEC person responds by
    saying something like "We are always trying to improve our low-end
    systems." Matco asks if we can expect maybe a 2 or 3 MIPS machine?
    DEC persons responds, that might be a possibility. And smiles.
    
    2. Matco picks up a the buzz word CVAX while eating at some place
    close to DEC.
    
                     (You get the picture...)
    
    A series of otherwise minor violations can lead to a good educated
    guess! It doesn't take long to compile a view of something from
    lots of little pieces.
    
    These DEC people might think they're talking to Hap E. User, and
    give them just a taste of information to reassure him that DEC is
    indeed doing something. If these DEC people knew they were talking
    to Charlie Matco, they would shut up in a micro-second.
    
    Think about it...
    
    						--- Neal
        

    
    Did some of Matco's text come word-for-word from internal documents?
    Do all Digital contract employees sign an agreement the way Digital
    employees do? I had no agreement when I was a contract employee
    with either Digital or the contract house. And yes, I was pumped
    at quite a bit at DECUS on several occasions.
        

    RE: .43
    
    I don't agree.  Matco got way too much correct on the workstation
    stuff (see .28) for it to be a number of small leaks.  He had access
    to a very knowledgeable person or a document.
    
    John

    re: .44  "Do all Digital contract employees sign an agreement the
    way Digital employees do?"
    
    All Digital contractors sign appropriate restrictions as part of
    their purchase contract. (Or their employer does.) Similarly, vendors
    sign similar restrictions as part of their purchase contract. And
    customers receiving a non-disclosure presentation sign a similar
    document.

    What DIGITAL REVIEW, and other publications, have printed seriously
    affects Digital's marketing and pricing strategy.  I expect Digital
    to suffer financially from such unauthorized disclosures.  I would
    also expect some lively discussions are going on within DEC's legal
    department as to what constitutes the printing of "trade secret"
    information by DIGITAL REVIEW.  If DEC hasn't already done so, I
    would expect letters to go out to DIGITAL REVIEW and other such
    publications detailing exactly what DEC defines as trade secret
    information, and stating that DEC will prosecute such unauthorized
    disclosures in the future.  Given proper grounds, the disclosure
    of trade secret information is unlawful.
    
    There needs to be more emphasis on protection proprietary information,
    but at the same time not sacrificing the free flow of information
    that has become a cornerstone of our internal culture.  Seems that
    upper management serving notice with the DIGITAL REVIEW ban!
    
    Ken Patterson
    
                                  
    

Re:  .36

John,

Matco (or whoever s/he is) does not need to get access to internal DEC
documents for the information in that article.  I sat in a
non-disclosure presentation with 30-40 people at a customer site and
had a 2 hour presentation on ALL of the things mentioned in that
article 6-8 MONTHS ago. 

Now.  All of the people in that room were told up front that this was
a non-disclosure presentation.  Their company had signed the correct
paperwork for the non-disclosure.  There names were taken (they got to
write them on a pad that was circulated). So, having said that, some
questions. 

1. Were all 30-40 strategic decision makers with a need for futures
information? 

2. Is it likely that no one in a group of 30-40 people violated the
non-disclosure terms?  Note that they may have quit the company that
they worked for since. 

3.  Is it possible, with DEC trying to break in to the IBM 'space',
that people that see this information under non-disclosure would be
IBM partisans?

Depending on your answers to those questions you may qualify for a chance
to bid on that NY bridge.

The moral of the story is;  Don't assume that your fellow employees
are necessarily the only source of this type of information. 

    Re: .48
    
    That is an excellent point.
    
    As pointed out earlier by a few people, a major reason that leaks
    occur is that people love to be able to feel powerful by 'sharing'
    inside information.  That's one thing that makes gossip so much fun.
    
    My experience is that most customers get even more excited about
    futures than we do.
    
    I'd say that it's far more likely that customers do more damage
    than we do.
    
    Not that we don't have more than our share of own internal leaks.
    
    Don

    Re: .48, .49
    
    I seriously doubt that a chart of manufacturing costs was presented
    to customers.
    
    Yes, customers do routinely violate non-disclosures.  Not too long
    ago one field-test site broadcast details about the unannounced
    product they were testing far and wide to the Arpanet and Usenet.
    
    On the subject of deliberate leaks - I have it on good authority
    that we really do this on occasion - it requires approval from
    very high up.
    					Steve

     Re: .47

	  [I will be kind.  I too once had a first time reply.]

	  A trade secret, by definition, is information (i) which is secret
     and (ii) the posession of which gives one a commercial advantage.
     DIGITAL REVIEW cannot, by definition, publish Digital trade secrets:
     they can only publish former Digital trade secrets.  By the time it
     gets to DIGITAL REVIEW, it is no longer a secret.

	  Digital could prosecute DIGITAL REVIEW, or any other publication,
     ONLY if it could prove that the publication had violated a
     nondisclosure agreement or had directly stolen Digital proprietary
     information.  Unless we've given nondisclosure presentations to
     DIGITAL REVIEW and DIGITAL REVIEW then violated the terms of the
     nondisclosure agreement, or unless a Charlie Matco elf stole -- not
     passively received, or actively sought for, but STOLE -- information
     from someone who lawfully had it, DIGITAL REVIEW is blameless, both
     legally and morally.

	  Now, it is indeed against Digital's interests for DIGITAL REVIEW,
     or any other publication, to publish Digital's former trade secrets.
     It is also against Digital's interests for IBM to market computers.
     We can't prosecute IBM for having the effontery to market computers in
     competition with us;  we can't prosecute DIGITAL REVIEW for having the
     effontery to publish information we don't like.  But we can, and
     should, find the customer who violated the nondisclosure agreement or
     the Digital employee who disclosed this information improperly, and
     hang him *HIGH*.

	  Yes, the disclosure of trade secret information can be unlawful.
     The use of former trade secret information is not.

	  Getting angry at DIGITAL REVIEW is the wrong thing to do.
     DIGITAL REVIEW was just doing its job, publishing information it
     obtained, presumably lawfully, that would presumably interest its
     customers.  This is the just and proper function of a magazine.
     DIGITAL REVIEW does not exist for Digital's pleasure, and it is
     senseless to expect it toady to our wishes.

	  But I call dibs on tying the knot in the rope, when we find who
     let this information out in the first place...

				  Brian Hetrick

    This may be a dumb question, but I'll ask anyway.  Would any of
    the financial damage suffered by DEC be lessened by statements from
    key people (in the know) that challenge the accuracy of the disclosed
    information?
    
    Mark.

	RE: .51

	Just so you don't forget, `receiving stolen property' is also a crime.

		Bob L.

    re: .53
    
    I doubt the same laws apply to receiving stolen information.  It's
    also possible the information was not stolen, but rather improperly
    disclosed.
    
    	- Jerry

Re .51:

>	  Digital could prosecute DIGITAL REVIEW, or any other publication,
>     ONLY if it could prove that the publication had violated a
>     nondisclosure agreement or had directly stolen Digital proprietary
>     information.  Unless we've given nondisclosure presentations to
>     DIGITAL REVIEW and DIGITAL REVIEW then violated the terms of the
>     nondisclosure agreement, or unless a Charlie Matco elf stole -- not
>     passively received, or actively sought for, but STOLE -- information
>     from someone who lawfully had it, DIGITAL REVIEW is blameless, both
>     legally and morally.

The following quote is from page 870 of Smith and Robertson's "Business Law",
copyright 1977 by West Publishing Company:

"
Chapter 37: Unfair Competition - Trade Regulation

Misuse of Trade Secrets

...

An employee is under a duty of loyalty to his employer which includes
the non-disclosure of trade secrets to competitors [or, presumably,
anyone else outside the company].  It is wrongful for a competitor [or,
presumably, for anyone else] to obtain vital secret trade information
of this type from an employee by bribery [e.g., coffee mugs] or otherwise.
The faithless employee also also commits a tort by divulging secret
trade information. ...
"

It might be true that we cannot restrict the distribution or use of trade
secrets, once they have been found to have been improperly disclosed.  I
don't have proof of that, but I seem to remember that being an outcome of a
discussion about trade secrets I had with someone a while ago. If this
is true (or a popular misconception), you may be thinking of this. 

However, the above would seem to indicate that those who might give away mugs
for trade secrets need not be more protected than those who would take them.

I wonder whether Digital Review is protected by any shield laws?
				/AHM

    It would appear the memo posted in .0 hasn't cut DR off from official
    source of information, much less unofficial ones.

    First, Digital Review is not liable for theft of trade secrets or
    anything like that.  Such things apply to companies like Emulex
    and what they learned from Charles Hess (was that his name?), a
    former DEC employee.
    
    Second, DR is guilty of a certain lack of professionalism, and that
    is the whole point.  Charlie Matco's column has some (often wrong)
    information, but it is written in a style that I personally find
    offensive.  Contrast that with, say, Monosson in Digital News. 
    Documents such as internal manufacturing costs are known by true
    professionals in the industry to be confidential information, and
    anyone other than the slime element in the trade press would treat
    it as such.  But DR is not in that element, and DEC apparently has
    chosen to treat them as they deserve.

    john

Why is the publication of the manufacturing costs of a product so
damaging?

Dave.

    re: .58
    
  > Why is the publication of the manufacturing costs of a product so
  > damaging?

    If the competition knows how much it costs to manufacture a product,
    they also have a rough idea of how low a price the company is willing
    to sell the product for.  They can then target their products around
    this price, or use the information to predict how much it's going
    to cost them to produce a competing product.
    
    A few years ago, the French were the routing point for most
    communications in Europe, under a EUROCOM agreement (I don't know
    if that's still true).  All data transmissions in and out of Europe
    went via French stations.  IBM suspected their information was being
    intercepted.  They warned their subsidiaries (by courier) about
    a false message they were about to send, and then transmitted a
    series of price changes.  These prices were unannounced, yet the
    Frnech computer companies immediately changed their prices to match
    these new (unnanounced, bogus) prices.  Hm.

    Understanding manufacturing costs also clues competitors into the
    overhead rates within our structure, therefore allowing them to
    predict our behavior should they make major strategic moves (ie,
    our ability to purchase companies or technologies, our ability to
    fund X-hundreds of development engineers, our ability to ramp up
    production).
    
    In the long run, this damage can be critical since internal financial
    structures take so long to change and since our technology development
    cycles have multi-year swings.

Re .57:

I yield to your knowledge of the law.
				/AHM/THX

    
    If you know how much a car cost the dealer you'd like to wheedle
    them down to that price + $1 before you buy.
    
    Our customers are going to feel the same. It makes the salesperson's
    job tougher... particularly when the competition isn't going through
    the same thing.
    
    This in addition to the reasons already given.
                   
      jc
    
    

It does depend on what the product is.  For example, it is quite easy to
estimate the approximate manufacturing cost of any product that uses
commodity parts - like memory boards - without inside information.

What is really damaging is the revelation of the cost of things like the
MicroVAX 2000 which is packed with DEC-manufactured chips.  Anyone with
that information and some industry knowledge can figure out all sorts of
things we would rather keep to ourselves. 

jb

        The effect on customers (wanting it just above cost) is one of
        the reasons that even *wrong* numbers (especially low one) can
        be bad. If the Customer "knows" that it costs us $100 to produce
        a terminal that actuall costs us $200, it can be very hard to
        get him to pay the $500 or whatever that we would charge for it.
        He wants it a $150 which he figures gives us "enough" profit. On
        the other hand if he thinks it costs us $400 to produce it, he
        may decide that since the price will never come down any further
        maybe he shouldn't get "hooked" on it. 
        
        Basically right or wrong, such "inside" information can have
        unpredictable and potentially damaging effects on us. Now if we
        let out some information that hurts us, we're just dumb or took
        a bad risk, but if someone else releases information that hurts
        us, we're liable to becom annoyed. And even if it helps us this
        time, we can't afford to let it stand for fear of establishing
        the precident that it's OK to leak this sort of stuff, and next
        time we may not be lucky.
        
        JimB. 

    I've been following this topic with interest.  My comment is:
    Welcome to the big leagues, ladies and gentlemen.  The
    allegedly detailed information obtained by _Digital Review_
    may well be deliberately leaked.  I've done some freelance
    journalism in my time, and been given (or extracted) a few
    pearls of new-product wisdom myself.  In fact, there are
    distinct benefits to releasing some kinds of product
    development information:

    o It restrains movement by the customer base -- if customers
      hear that DEC is building products they want, they're less
      likely to go elsewhere to buy them (salesmen would do
      anything to avoid losing business)

    o It creates an image of DEC as an active, aggressive company,
      constantly coming up with new, useful products (that
      attracts both customers and potential employees)

    o It casts fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the minds of the
      competition, who find they must aim competitive products at
      a moving target (when you're out in front, they all have to
      chase your specs).

    I don't mean to condone premature announcements; in fact, it
    drives me crazy to hear "vaporware" announcements.  But when
    IBM does it, it's called shrewd marketing.  And it works for
    them.

    Nothing much can be done with _Digital Review_, I think.
    Newspapers have been obtaining information for centuries.
    Besides, hearing a few project code words imprudently dropped
    over lunch, combined with elementary deduction, can fill a lot
    of gaps.  Just from knowing how big DEC is, I'll bet I can
    safely predict that there are development efforts going on in
    all product areas.  If you tell me there's a MicroVAX II out
    there, I could write that DEC is working on a MicroVAX III --
    stuff like that.  I could even guess at some specs.  Of
    course, hard information is much more valuable, but it's fun
    to play detective, or swami.

>   But when IBM does it, it's called shrewd marketing.  And it works for them.

??? I thought IBM was specifically enjoined from doing it as a result of the
    360/195 fiasco.

/john

    In the March 9 issue of The National Digital Enquirer (Digital Review),
    Matco takes a stab at the new policy against them. He opens his
    article by saying that the mailing label must have fallen off his
    invitation to the 8250/8350/8530 announcement.
    
    He goes on to say that just gave him more time to read his "Unannounced
    Products File (UPF)". Could the embargo be adding fuel to his fire?
    
    							--- Neal

    
    Excusing "Charlie Matco" is like giving money to a bum. He may use it
    to buy a decent meal, but the odds are it'll go for another bottle
    of ripple.
    
    The only person that you're fooling is yourself. 
    
      John
    
    
    

    re: .67:
    
    Of course it's fueling his fire.  Doing this only adds to their
    legitimacy.  It makes us look like an arrogant elephant trying to
    swat a gnat.  And given that we rely on magazines like Digital Review
    to bang our drums, it isn't clear to me what we have to gain by
    taking such a ridiculously hard line with them.

RE: .66

As part of the consent decree that settled the CDC vs. IBM antitrust case over
the 360/90 fiasco, IBM agreed not to announce any product that wasn't in
manufacturing production.  While the U.S. vs. IBM antitrust case was on, IBM
also played it cool regarding what we call "program announcements"--the
announcement of intended future directions without announcing the availability
of specific products.

The IBM/CDC consent decree has expired, and the U.S. antitrust case has been
dropped.  IBM therefore is being more liberal than in the past about announcing
futures.

--PSW

From reading most of the replies to this note, I get the feeling that most of
us are looking at this issue from DEC's viewpoint and not being very objective.
Digital Review's primary obligation is to it's readers (who contribute to its
bottom line), and so it is reasonable to expect them to use any legal means
to get information to help them make decisions on the equipment they may want 
to buy from us (DEC). If this means publishing manufacturing costs that they 
can obtain legally then that is exactly what they will do. I can see that many
of their readers (our customers) would definitely want to get their hands on 
this type of information. Mind you what is legal for them is probably not so
for the DEC employees leaking the information, and as a beneficiary (employee
and stockholder) I would like people discovered to be handing them information
punished. However, I think it is unfair on our part to be blaming DR for doing
what they are supposed to be doing. So, I think we should stop harassing them
and plug the leaks and take appropriate legal action against those employees
or customers who leak information to Digital Review (or any one else). If
accepting leaked information is illegal then of course we should sue DR for
everything we can get? (But I'm sure they are protected by laws promoting a
free press).

Just my two bits,
Thanx,
Sudhir.

    re:.71 
    
    I wasn't aware that Digital was harassing Digital Review.  Please
    enlighten me. 

    re: .72
    
    As told to me, at a recent new product introduction to the press,
    Digital Review was barred from entering.  Of course, they hung
    around outside and got all the details from others attending the
    introduction.
    
    The loss of eight full pages of DEC ads in Digital Review adds up
    to quite a substantial loss in advertising revenue for DR.
    
    Don't expect to see any more copies of Digital Review in facility 
    lobbies, sales offices, etc.
                                                              
    I suspect there will be lots more.
    
    Ken
    

    Of course, they might remove all DEC employees from their
    mailing list in retaliation.

>    Of course, they might remove all DEC employees from their
>    mailing list in retaliation.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face :-)

    >Of course, they might remove all DEC employees from their
    >mailing list in retaliation.
    
    I can't wait, they (I don't know if it's DEC or DR) send it via
    Federal Express to Lubbock, Texas to the Salesman, but we 
    (Field Service) receive it the very next day on Second Class Mail!
    
    glenn

    Re .76
    
>   I can't wait, they (I don't know if it's DEC or DR) send it via
>   Federal Express to Lubbock, Texas to the Salesman, but we 
>   (Field Service) receive it the very next day on Second Class Mail!
    
    And who says that there are no classes in Digital? ;-)
    
    Jim

Being barred from announcements and losing advertisement revenue from DEC.
If that's not harassment, then what is? I hope the HLO library continues to
subscribe to DR. If you expect the press to print news based only on DEC
announcements and press briefs and comment based on these "approved" sources,
then you obviously don't subscribe to the importance of investigative 
journalism. I still think we are just passing the blame onto Digital Review
and ignoring our own failure to keep important information private. Besides,
aren't we overreacting a little, how many people take Matco's column as gospel
truth. Do you believe everything you read in the National Enquirer (or any 
other grocery store rag), more importantly would base important decisions based
on what appears in those magazines.

What should we do? Either sue the magazine for printing false information that
caused us some financial (or some other kind of) loss. Or lay off. In any case
tighten up security around the company on this issue.

Thanx,
Sudhir.

    I wasn't quite expecting a SOAPBOX-style answer.  Mr. Moderator
    please provide a guiding hand.
    
    Harassment is what the dictionary and the criminal code say it is,
    namely to trouble and annoy continually.
    
    Your premise that somehow a private company like Digital has an
    editorial obligation to Digital Review, or a financial obligation to
    Ziff Communications, its publisher, is wrong.  Digital has no 
    obligation to invite anyone to our announcements or to pay anyone to
    advertise our products. 
    
    I think comments like "you obviously don't subscribe to the importance
    of investigative journalism"(270.78) "obviously" are not contributing
    to the quality of this discussion.

    I believe there is room for open discussion regarding Digital's
    response to the Digital Review... whether or not the response was
    appropriate...
    
    As always, the comments should be directed at the matter at hand,
    not the respondents to this conference...
    
    regards,
    Marge

    re: 270.79:
    
    Reading tone and intent into the printed word is always a tricky
    business.  I respectfully suggest that you may be the one who is
    over-reacting here.  The comments in 270.78 could do with a little more
    structure, but I really don't see why you feel the statements therein
    are an attack on your personally. 
    
    I think that the main points that some of us have been making are:
    	- DR is just doing its job, and if they aren't doing anything
    	  illegal then we should temper our disapproval.
    	- Tightening up our security is certainly our right as a corporation.
    	- Magazines like DR *help us* make sales and spread the word
    	  on DEC products.  It is a symbiotic relationship.
    	- We do give them advance information sometimes.  How do you
    	  think articles happen to come out at the same time (same week, or
    	  same month) as a new product announcement?
    	- All totaled, it is somewhat hypocritical for us to get all
    	  ticked off at DR.  It also makes us look petty, makes them
    	  look more important than they really are, and cannot help
    	  us in the long run.

    Re .81:
    
    I'm not sure who the "we" you are referring to when you say "we"
    give them advance information sometimes.
    
    The normal practice in giving out information is at time of press
    release, not before.  The rare exceptions are done in conjunction
    with nondisclosure agreements that must be adhered to rigidly.
    
    That any magazine, be it weekly or monthly, may come out with a
    story that is essentially true at time of announcement does not
    mean that it was supplied to it from official company sources.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re: .82:
    
    The "we" is DEC, and yes the practice is the pre-announcement
    information given out with a non-disclosure agreement.  I do not think
    it is a rare event at all; my impression (and I have no hard data ---
    but then again, neither do you so I'm OK :-) is that it happens before
    any major announcement.
    
    Also, while it is strictly true that a non-disclosure agreement is
    supposed to prevent early disclosure, I personally do not know of
    anyone who has ever been involved directly with NDA's who was not
    fatalistic/cynical about the entire process. Every NDA carries with it
    a non-zero probability of leaks.  I don't want to argue the letter of
    the law with you on this, but if you really believe that NDA's must be
    "adhered to rigidly" then probably every NDA that we have ever issued
    fails your test. 

    Re .83:
    
    The nondisclosure agreements to the _press_ are not made routinely
    with "any major press announcement."  Those few that are are generally
    restricted to specialized monthly or quarterly publications that
    do not appear simultaneous with the announcement.
    
    Nondisclosure agreements made with _customers_ should prevent them
    from speaking to the press, though it's easy to imagine scenarios
    where such has happened.                
    
    Premature disclosure of product information to a weekly publication,
    DR or whoever, is _not_ in Digital's interest.  There are quite
    a few weekly publications, and for one continually to "scoop" the
    others creates resentment from all the others.  It's better, and
    in our interest, to treat all of them evenhandedly.
    
    Of course, if we were to "preannounce" to all of them, we'd merely move
    the announcement day up to the "preannouncement" day and ensure
    that no magazine would attend a Digital press conference.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
     

From:  LEAGLE::NEVINS
TO:    OGOMTS::KAMINS,NEVINS
SUBJ:  Digital Review Embargo


*****  Please forward this notice to all groups which  *****
       received the previous notice

On February 17, 1987 an internal notice was distributed stating 
Digital's decision to place a news embargo on Digital Review.  
While the memo contained guidelines to be used to implement the 
corporate decision not to provide information to Digital Review, 
it has prompted a number of questions.  In addition, people 
outside the corporation are aware of the embargo.

It is important that the implementation of the news embargo be 
well executed.  Consequently, all employees are advised as to the 
following.

      1.  Digital's decision not to conduct press relations with 
Digital Review represents the unilateral business decision of 
Digital Equipment Corporation.  Digital's customers, vendors and 
other companies are free to make their own decisions about press 
relations, advertising or other media related policies.

      2.  Digital's employees should not discuss Digital Review or 
the news embargo with customers, vendors or any other companies.

      3.  Digital's employees should take no action which either 
directly or indirectly impacts a customer's, vendor's or other 
company's decision to read, subscribe or advertise in Digital 
Review.

      4.  Any external questions regarding the Digital Review 
embargo should immediately be referred to Joe Codispoti.

      5.  If you have a critical question about this memo, call 
Joe Codispoti.

>      2.  Digital's employees should not discuss Digital Review or 
>the news embargo with customers, vendors or any other companies.
>
>      3.  Digital's employees should take no action which either 
>directly or indirectly impacts a customer's, vendor's or other 
>company's decision to read, subscribe or advertise in Digital 
>Review.

Good thing they're distributing this warning to the dum-dums to whom it
might not be obvious.  Embargoing Digital Review is perfectly legal, but
the action prohibited in "3" (and "2" could "indirectly impact") is
important, because failure to observe this prohibition COULD be justification
for DR to bring suit for damages.

/john

    re: .84:
    
    Guess your experiences are different from mine.
    
    jdr

        Look, boys and girls, throwing words like "harassment" around
        and making allegations that we leak our proprietary information
        to the press routinely and the like are just bloody well
        irresponsible. These are legal matters you are talking about--
        matters that can have lots of serious impact on us as a
        corporation. 
        
        I strongly recommend that it is in no-one's best interest, not
        Digitial's as a corporation and not yours or mine career-wise to
        allege that DIgital is knowingly involved in wrong-doing or
        acting in a manner that compromises our ownership of company
        secrets. 
        
        Look, if you "have no hard data" and are just mouthing off about
        your "impressions", do us all a favor and just clam up! If you
        DO have hard data and are going on more than mere impressions
        that something is being done to harass another company or to
        routine disclose proprietory information this isn't the place to
        talk about it--contact our legal or security departments and get
        the problem fixed.
        
        JimB.

    re: 'leaks' to the press...
    
    Standard public relations practice is to generate press releases
    before the date of an event, specified to be 'for release on <date>'.
    Professional courtesy in the journalism trade requires that the
    recipients of such releases not jump the gun. If they do, they may
    not get the next release from that source.
    
    It's not a 'leak' - it's an established way of doing business, all
    open and above board.

    How do you think weekly and monthly publications work?  By time
    travel?  Embargoed press releases are standard operating procedure.
    
    While we're on the subject:  Why do you think there even exists
    a "non-disclosure agreement?"  Why does Digital (like every other
    company) tell customers about "unannounced" products?
    
    Read microcomputer magazines.  Rumors and pre-release information
    is a staple of the literary diet.  (Cf. MacUser, 4/87, pp. 34-35
    -- a two-page ad for an unreleased product, asking users NOT to
    buy the existing competition, but to wait instead; pp. 56-57, a
    two-page ad for a program to be released May 1, directly targeting
    the compeition.)

    Re .87:
    
    They are, and for this company.  If you know exceptions to this
    practice, please notify Corporaste Public Relations, Legal, and
    Security.  Please provide examples of such infractions.
    
    Re .88:
    
    I couldn't agree more!
    
    Re .89:
    
    This is not Digital's Public Relations practice.  Major releases
    always have a "For Immediate Release" line. 
    
    Re .90:
    
    As per my response to .89.  Digital tries to schedule our press
    conferences so the weekly publications are able to meet their closing.
    Additionally, the main release, if of a major product, is generally
    given to the newswires on the day of announcement.  There are press
    contacts provided by the Public Relations Department whose function
    is to respond to press inquiries; these are listed on the press
    releases.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    Corporate Public Relations
    

    I keep seeing the same things stated over and over again. Haven't
    we all said enough about this? This particular conference seems
    to have generated a lot of "heat" with no new ideas. In my obviously
    biased opinion this conference is beating a dead horse. There is
    enough already here for those without specific knowledge to adjust
    their behaviour accordingly.
    
    The bottom line: follow the corporate policy and everybody will
    be satisfied (at least within DIGITAL). Nuff said.
    
    						Warren
    

    I heard that security tracked down a 1000 calls to digital review
    and fired the employees who were not authorized to call digital
    review at the the 617 number.  Also I heard that one of the pictures
    of the vax2000 was illegal and came from a test site outside of
    dec who signed a non-disclosure agreement with dec.  Apparently
    one of the co-owners of this test company is a employee at Digital
    Review. DEC is going to sue the test site company.  Security stated
    DEC could lose 30 million dollars.
    

    
    There might be some employees sending mail direct to digital review
    via the psi protocal that exists on the sales systems in DEC.  There
    might be a mci gateway that is hidden to security at one of the
    sales sight locations.  I know that some digital customers have
    psi connections to our sales offices and can send mail via enet.
    
    

No need to look for hidden X.25 gateways.  All you need to send a message
through MCI is a terminal and a modem.

    The latest rumor that I've heard is that DEC has brought suit against
    Digital Review for having illegal access to some node on the Enet.
    
    But then again, the rumor came from a Digital News sales rep...
    
    	Stu
    

    
    	re: 94.
    
    	If you know of unsecure X.25 lines or 'hidden X.25 lines' you should
    	report it to Easynet security.We have means of auditing and
    	securing systems with X.25 access and we have to do it.
    
    	If you have any suggestions on improving VAX P.S.I. security,
    	please  send a mail to MARVIN::DAVISON, or to me.
    	
    	X.25 opens our network to the world, we can and we have to control
    	this access.
    
    			Wlodek ( comms support )

    . . . There use to be over two dozen subscribers to DR in our CC.
    The last issue anybody around here received was 2/23 - the one that
    was already in transit when the embargo was imposed. Has ANYONE
    out there received a copy at a DEC address since then? Has anyone
    seen an issue since then? If so, I'm sure others besides myself
    would be very interested to know what's in the news these days.
    Neal LA780::Goldsmith seems to be about the last person to have
    had any contact with a copy of DR. Anything new out there guys?
    
    -Jack
    

    re: .98
    
    I received copies dated 3/9 and 3/23.  Digital Review is published
    biweekly, so these are the only copies I would have expected after
    2/23.
    
    	- Jerry

    I rather doubt that DR would remove Digital employees from its mailing
    list.  DR is a "controlled circulation" (i.e., "freebie" -- free
    to _qualified_ subscribers) magazine.  Its advertising rates are
    based on its circulation figures.  Cutting qualified recipients
    from their mailing lists would result in significant losses in
    advertising revenues, a subtle form of shooting oneself in ones
    foot.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Sounds like an overzealous mailroom came up with its own interpretation
of the embargo!

    DR in the last issue (March 23, 1987) quoted extensively from the
    developer or former developer of a product now under field test. (page
    53) 
    
    DR interviewed extensively the principal customer field test contact
    regarding the quality of a product now under field test. (see page 51) 
    
    Both mentions were prominent and positive.

    If I were the product manager of the product referred to in 270.102,
    I would contact the person supposedly interviewed to see if he actually
    did give information to DR.  If he admitted doing this I would drop
    him from the field test, since he clearly doesn't respect the field
    test license provisions, which require confidentiality.
    
    I would also make sure that Field Test Administration and the
    customer's local office were aware of this violation, to discourage
    other products from using him as a field test site.
        John Sauter

    re .102
    
    What were the products mentioned in the two DR articles? I'm very
    curious.
    
    			Fred
    

    DECalc-Plus?
    
    My customer has received an SDC kit for this. I do believe that
    it's released.
    
    Was this customer a FT site way back when it was FT?
    
    Jim (Not a DR subscriber)
    

    I have a slightly different perspective on the DR situation.  I
    work in a field office here in NY and find DR a very enlightening
    publication.  The rumors are no more perniciouus than those put
    out by the whole industry that publishes the same on IBM.
    
    The one element that the DR embargo will effect is to bring to the
    attention of field personnel the fact that DR is not connected with
    Digital Equip. Corp.  There is a sales rep in this office who was
    contacted by DR some months ago and the rep  gave that reporter
    every detail desired on sales strategies, revenue targets...
    
    I can't say that this was yellow journalism since the reporter did
    not misrepresent himself but the name of the pub. mislead.
    
    DR, perhaps in response to our ban, is now publishing some very
    uncomfortable reviews of some of our products.  Accurate (as far
    as I can tell), but the type of thing that is difficult to address
    in the field.  As was said in an earlier note, aban seems to be
    just the thing a news publication wants; it would be better to work
    with them as much as possible.
    
    Were I the reporter and able to get the inside info (with
    corroboration), I would certainly have written the story.  Wouldn't
    you?
    
    Peter Dillard
    NYC

    I'm the product manager for DECalc-PLUS.  I set up the review article
    and interviews with them long before the embargo.  DR was set up
    as an official field test site in order to do the review.
    
    At the time DR interviewed the FT customers the product was approved
    by PAC, announced in Sales Update, and being shown to customers
    all over the world.
    
    The FT site's comments to DR were not a violation of anything because
    we said they could do it.
    
    The overall effect of the DR articles has increased visibility of
    our products and will certainly result in higher revenues.
    
    All discussions with them were concluded before the embargo was
    announced.
    
    I won't apologize for getting the word out on my product in any
    way that meets the corporate guidelines. 

    re: .108--My flame in .103 was caused by the incorrect information
    in .102, to the effect that the product was still in field test.
    Given the facts, as described in .108, I retract .103.  I hope that
    the product manager was not offended by my suggestion in .103 that
    action should have been taken against the interviewees.  That
    suggestion was based on incorrect information about the release
    status of the product.
        John Sauter

    Well, it certainly seems that nothing is stopping DR from obtaining
    information.  
    
    This week's (20 April) Digital Review contains new (we've had a rumor
    board here for a while now), esoteric, and accurate detail on the VT330
    and VT340, mentioning exact dates of internal training and briefing
    activities.  
    
    [VT330 and VT340 were announced yesterday, by the way, to a closed
    press briefing.] 

    Re .110:
    
>   [VT330 and VT340 were announced yesterday, by the way, to a closed
>   press briefing.]
    
    Yes, but I also have the current(?) Sales Update which has a bunch
    of stuff in it. This may have been around for a while, since I'm
    in DC and Snail-mail usually takes some time to get here.
    
    I suspect that DR has some friendly suppliers of the SU.
    
    Jim
    

    re .111
    
    Only one problem with the sales update theory, is that sales update
    doesn't breathe a word about a new product until just before the
    announcement. It doesn't talk about futures.  It's designed to
    give the sales rep the information they need to sell products, not
    talk about futures (i.e cut their own throat).
    
    Someone's feeding their own ego...I hope their MATCO cup makes them
    feel worthwile..
    
    

    The editorial in the latest DR talks about the embargo, saying that
    DEC told them about it!  They sure make us look bad!
    				Steve

    Some of the information in the most recent issue contains actual
    code names of unannounced products, and has correctly pinpointed
    the location of activity for those products.
    
    No doubt about it....there is an insider somewhere. One day they'll
    get caught and justice will be done.
    
    							Warren
    

    Well, at the risk of generating a lot of heat on an already hot
    issue, I would like to ask a simple question ...
    
    Reply .114 mentions that Digital Review has published the "actual
    code name of unannounced products ..."
    
    My question (more of a comment) is ...  So what ???
    
    Now before you all jump all over me, I'm well aware of the sensitive
    nature of unannounced products.  Corporate information is an asset
    and should be protected and so on and so forth ...
    
    Did you ever stop to think about the code names of our projects??
    
    Nautilus, Scorpio, Venus, Superstar, and hundreds of others...
                       
    Say it your mind ...  The "VENUS Project", the "SCORPIO", etc.
    
    These are not *BORING* names.  These are names designed to *EXCITE*
    your imagination.   
    
    If we *REALLY* wanted to keep these things secret, why don't we call 
    them things like the      "49-O21/89K Project" ...	
    No 'sizzle' there at all and it wouldn't make good reading in 
    Matco's column.  Can you picture it ???  
    
    "And over at Chez Matco,  your favorite sleuth saw a brand 
    new 49-O21/89K".  Doesn't sound too exciting to me ...
    
    I really believe, right or wrong, that there is a certain amount
    of good old fashioned marketing hustle at work here and the 'leak'
    of a code name or two might help more than it hurts.  Although it
    can hurt big, it can help bigger ...
    
    Bob Hunt
    

        Re: .115
        
        Yeah, we could call them the 8280 when they are in development
        and then switch to calling them the MARS when we ship!
        
        [FYI, the 8280 isn't 280 times a 780 in the size of a shoe box,
        and MARS isn't a package system with an 8280, 1024 Meg, and a
        10K by 10K bit-mapped flat screen, or any other project that I
        have heard about.] 
        
        					B.J.

    one thing that suprised me in Matcos last two columns.  He keeps
    talking about 'Aztek', which (when I last looked) the code name
    for the RC25?
    
    
    so what's so fascinating about this one charlie?
    
    

    
    hmmm, interesting turn of events here... Matco is a "DIGITAL watcher"
    and we become "Matco watchers"...
    
    :^)
    Marge
    

Anyone who has lingering doubts that copies of Digital Review are being
destroyed before they reach employees' mailstops should read the story
in topic 118 of VIKING::LAWS (q.v.).
				/AHM

    WHY DOPN'T YOU POST IT HERE FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T FOLLOW LAWS?

BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE THE NOTES, AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE ASKING THE AUTHORS
FOR PERMISSION TO COPY THEM.
				/AHM

    re:  LAWS topic,
    
    I wrote Reply .2, which was the last one as of yesterday (and a
    bit of a flame).
    
    The original topic concerned the mailroom in one of our Illinois
    offices, which was destroying incoming copies of Digital Review,
    claiming that some "higher ups" told them to do it.  The questioner
    asked, as a law question, is it legal for a company to destroy mail
    before being delivered to the person named?  I haven't seen an answer
    posted yet.
    
    Obviously this "embargo" business is getting carried too far in
    some quarters...

    Some people are getting their copies; the person two office down
    from me was carrying around the latest one on Monday, which he had
    just gotten.  I didn't bother to look at it, and I think he has
    already tossed it out anyhow, though -- I hear enough rumors already.

    This sounds completely BARMY. Someone needs educating.

    "Aztec" is indeed the old RC25 - Matco is running at about the
    95% noise level nowadays.  I think Charlie has done us all a favor
    by raising the awareness of DEC employees of the importance of keeping
    sensitive information private.
    
    Last week at DECUS, several customers mentioned to me that DEC people
    were more close-mouthed about futures than they had in the past.
    I take this as a good sign.
    
    Also, at DEXPO, DR had a booth where you could get a free ice-cream
    cone and a "Get the scoop with Digital Review" button, complete
    with Charlie Matco logo (faceless character in spy-style trenchcoat
    and hat).
    
    Nevertheless, I continue to get DR at Spit Brook.  If an individual
    site is interfering with the mail, take it up with that site's
    management.
    				Steve

From:	NAME: CODISPOTI
	INITLS: JOE
	FUNC: CORP PUBLIC RELATIONS
	ADDR: CFO1-1/M18
	TEL: 251-1031 <5365@DECMAIL@PEN@CFO>

To:	See Below

Digital and Digital Review have agreed on a program to return our 
relationship to normalcy over the next few months.  Consequently, the 
news and information embargo is being lifted.  

We will return Digital Review to our mailing list effective today. Their 
reporters and editors should be accorded treatment similar to other 
publications we deal with.  As such we should continue to use proper 
professional and business discretion on responding to inquiries, requests 
for interviews and visits to facilities.

I will be meeting with Digital Review's editor and publisher shortly 
to further define our relationship.  Please advise me of any activities 
related to Digital Review which you feel need our attention.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter during the past few difficult 
months.

Regards.

Joe. 

    Does this magazine still exist?  AltaVista doesn't return anything on
    them.  
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Digital Review merged with Digital News a number of years ago.  The combined
publication ceased last year.  I remember fondly when both these publications
were big, fat weekly or bi-weekly magazines with lots of articles and ads. 
Sadly, it's a reflection on our fall from grace that neither now exists.

Paul

    I used to read this mag. all the time.  I recall that they combined at
    one time with Digital News to form Digital News & Review.  I vaguely
    recall that they either tightened up their subscription rules or
    started to charge for the mag.  That was the last I saw of it, and I no
    longer subscribe.
    
    -B

    I stand corrected by .128.  That's the *correct* answer.
    -B

    Wasn't there one called "DEC Professional" too?  That was pretty thin
    the last time I saw it too.

    I vaguely remember receiving some notice that DN&R was being rolled up
    into some other periodical with a lackluster name.  It was no longer
    Digital-specific, as best I recall.

    It seems to me that the last few issues of DN&R were rather pathetic. 
    I seem to recall that they had gone to a smaller size paper and it
    seemed to have only a few pages per edition.  I don't even think I
    bothered to read them.

    As mentioned previously, it signaled the end of an era.  You didn't
    need internal spin doctors back then to tell you that we were a force
    in the marketplace -- all you had to do was to look around.  People on
    the outside were constantly looking for information about our newest
    products and our future directions.

    Personally, I find it hard to cheer with the positivists around here
    who run around claiming the competition is running scared in the face 
    of our latest victory (like the Microsoft alliance, MS Scalability Day,
    etc.).  I remember what victory looks like.  This ain't it.

    We need REAL victories in the marketplace.  I'm sorry, but I've never
    seen a company earn respect for being the "best darn lapdog that IBM/
    Microsoft/whatever ever had."
    
    We need to make a place in market with OUR name on it.  The Intel suit
    is a gutsy move, provided that we're willing to play out the full game
    and not resign after a few moves.  We need the guts to promote DIGITAL
    products, DIGITAL services, and the DIGITAL difference.  Go ahead, play
    the Microsoft game -- but don't kill off our products to appease the
    fickle gods on Mount Redmond.  Grow our own products -- push 'em, sell 'em!
    
    Then, maybe, they'll need magazines to keep track of us again!
    
    -- Russ

    I recall DEC Professional too.  I think there was even a VAX
    Professional at one time.
    
    Terry Shannon, aka Charlie Matco, now publishes his own newsletter
    called Shannon Knows DEC.
    
    Mike

    In the last few weks the song "Those were the days my friend, we
    thought they'd never end" keeps going through my head. I came to
    Digital in 1969, when this was the just starting to be the best place
    in the industry to be. When prospective employees and customers beat our
    doors down to get in. I traveled the world through the 70's and 80's,
    pushing things like MUMPS, VAX, and for a time even Rainbows, and it 
    was real ego building to be the 'man from DEC'. 
    
    I still have a copy a copy of a Digital Review with my photo announcing
    one of our more infamous workstation products.
    
    Its harder to face these days when customers either dont have a clue
    who we are, or do know and have a sneer for us. Sure hope something
    pulls us up soon enough, so I can retire from on top of the world
    again.
    
    sorry for the ramblings of a tired old man. 

    Professional Press published a whole series of DEC-related mags:
    
    	RSTS Professional
    	DEC Professioanl
    	VAX Professional
    	Personal & Professional (Rainbow, DECmate & Pro series)
    
    The original publishers, Dave Mallery and Carl Marbach sold out about 5
    years ago. I guess they made their bucks while there were still bucks
    to be made.
    
    \dave

    Re .135:
    
    I'll forgive you, Ron, if you'll do the same for me.  I remember
    working with you as the MUMPS product manager in ML5-5 (no "O" then) in
    the early 1970s to write an article about MUMPS.
    
    It can be argued that those early decades of success were the worst
    things to happen to Digital, because they convinced management of their
    own omniscience, deafened them to dangers signals from the marketplace, 
    and made them impervious to the technical and marketing changes that
    became necessary to survive and prosper in the 1990s and beyond.
    
    M