Chuck,
Chuck,
I am trying to understand what is bothering you. HP is not doing this out of
love. To them it is a business deal. I don't know what they consider an
acceptable return on investment but my guess is that it must at least be not
less than zero.

OpenMPE Inc. has been negotiating with HP on a number of points including
the price. Therefore, when OpenMPE "tests the waters" it is not for HP alone
that they do so. The creating/marketing entity, HP/OpenMPE, has suggested a
price and product. We the buying public can say to that entity, that the
price, the product or anything else about them is unacceptable.

We the consumers do not get to sit in on the negotiations. We get to vote
with our wallets. This is how business is done. Nothing is a done until all
parties agree on the deal. (That's why the MSRP of the fruitcake at your
grocery is $7.99 and they are selling it for a buck-fifty.)

That said, I think that OpenMPE Inc has represented our needs to HP. We
voted for this board and they in turn have acted for us. HP is not going to
negotiate with each of us individually so we need OpenMPE. They will not get
each of us everything we want but they will get the product created.
Additionally, Jon can correct me if I am wrong, I think for the board
members it is a labor of love. I thank you all for your efforts.

The folks at "CSY" have been on "our" side up until now and I don't see how
that has changed. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it was to sell
HP on the idea of emulating a dead product. I salute them for even
considering it. I am amazed by how far it has come. I thank everyone that
has made this happen.

Thank you for listening.

Work for Peace
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt


-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Ryan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MPE Licensing (Thanks to Jeff Vance)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan M. Backus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPE Licensing (Thanks to Jeff Vance)
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>         Because of a Non-disclosure agreement, I was not
> permitted to be more
> specific then that.  The fact that HP decided to be more
> specific later was
> their choice, right, and was greatly appreciated.  I refer to
> Tom's earlier
> reply on all other points.
>
> Thanx,
>         Jon
>

Ah, my mistake, I thought OpenMPE was independent of HP.

It is very interesting that you were willing to make a post that
misrepresented the purpose of your discussion. It appears that instead of
asking for suggestions you were actually testing the waters for HP about
their proposed price. I personally would have found this to be ethically
questionable, but that is just me.

Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.





CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic message is legally privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be
corrected and delete it immediately.