Subject: Re: PROS piece in Gas Daily
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for following up on this all.  I'm good on Stuart's recommendation.  DF

Lee Huber
10/19/2000 11:07 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Kimberly Watson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Martha Janousek/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: PROS piece in Gas Daily

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Lee Huber/ET&S/Enron on 10/19/2000 11:05 
AM ---------------------------

"Ford, Stuart J." <[email-masked]> on 10/19/2000 08:26:28 AM
To: "'Huber, Lee'" <[email-masked]>
cc: "Stockbridge, Edward T" <[email-masked]> 

Subject: PROS piece in Gas Daily

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION

Lee:

Since we spoke last night I have talked to Ted.  We all come out the same
way, I think, that this episode is probably best left alone.

First, unless Kim has information to the contrary, I think we would have a
hard time establishing that the only way the alleged "failed" Enron system
became known to PROS was via the PROS/ET&S relationship.  If it could have
become known independently via a source not protected by a nondisclosure
agreement, then we have no real complaint.

Second, if the statement in the Gas Daily is actually true, then we have no
axe to grind about defamation or related issues.

It is unfortunate that a casual reader might think that the statement
actually refers to a failure in the PROS/ET&S RM work rather than to a
failure in the prior Enron capacity management project.  Perhaps we are more
sensitive than most, however, knowing what we know.  I would guess that
there are probably a lot of readers out there who are unaware of the ET&S RM
project and thus would not know to mistakenly attribute the statement to the
ET&S RM project.

Further, the mistake that a casual reader might make might also be
attributable to sloppy journalism as much to what McCracken at PROS may have
actually said.

Finally, the longer we do not hear from PROS, the more their "case" weakens
in the future complaining about the genealogy of our RM product.

In summary, probably best left alone.  But I do recommend that we continue
to monitor for this stuff.  It appears the PROS RM products are now
available and we can only guess what Enron information is inside them to
make them work, or was used to sell them or make them work.

Stuart Ford
VE