From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Steven Sinofsky Subject: Re: contract Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:17:11 +0000 I understand your concern, but I think the doc is meaningless. for both sides. IF they dont want to pay you they won't, no matter what it says, and take the bad press. . very very slim, relax On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Steven Sinofsky < wrote: But the way it reads it is for perpetuity and I can't really talk about Microsoft. I just can't have that. ---- Reply message --- From: "Jeffrey Epstein" <[email protected]> To: "Steven Sinofsky" Subject: contract Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 3:48 AM I think it is ok. lets talk, they will never sue you for disparagement. it would make them look ridcitulis , it is bad enough that they put in the non compete for 5 months. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Steven Sinofsky < > wrote: Their comments will not be owned by them ... they will just be stories about me that they placed (including the defense of this contract). the biggest issue for me is section 6 -- it is a perpetuity agreement. I was on a 12 month schedule for this whole thing. I can't figure out what can be said or not and for how long or not. Sent from Windows Mail From: Jeffrey Epstein Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:43 PM To: Steven Sinofsky You can respond to their comments with abandon sobibdo not see a real issue On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, Steven Sinofsky wrote: Section 2... a lot of section 6 hinges on this section which is that payment should be made unless the agreement is "materially" breached AND there is failure to cure. Defining what materially breached means in the context of section 6 is tricky and curing a vague concept of disparagement is tricky. There's an easy argument of "cannot unring the bell" that gets made. What I worry about is basically not getting paid and then having to sue. 6b. This reads like a permanent restraining order on talking about Microsoft. Hard to see how I could write a