<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Autonomy/ZANTAZ Signs $70M Deal With Citigroup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clearwellsystems.com/e-discovery-blog/2008/01/09/autonomyzantaz-signs-70m-deal-with-citigroup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clearwellsystems.com/e-discovery-blog/2008/01/09/autonomyzantaz-signs-70m-deal-with-citigroup/</link>
	<description>thoughts about the evolution of e-discovery</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.clearwellsystems.com/e-discovery-blog/2008/01/09/autonomyzantaz-signs-70m-deal-with-citigroup/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clearwellsystems.com/e-discovery-blog/?p=43#comment-76</guid>
		<description>I received an email from a credible source who prefers that I do not disclose his identify. He tells me: 

While it is true that Zantaz did get a deal for an undisclosed financial institution (http://www.autonomy.com/content/News/Releases/2008/0103.en.html), as outlined correctly in a press release from Autonomy, there was no mention of the Desktop Legal Hold (DLH).

Additionally, the only mention of the Desktop Legal Hold as the deal driver came from a lone blogger that was picked up by other sources, the link to the blog is at: http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsID=11042&#038;pagtype=all. The entry itself is incorrect insofar as DLH did not exist when Autonomy purchased Zantaz (and, although we are not sure, we know from Analysts and have heard from others that DLH is vapor and not fully developed as of yet).

What I can tell you about the deal is that it was Citigroup and was not for DLH. The deal was for email archiving and services. While the deal was great for Zantaz, as there is no denying the size of the deal, it was not a DLH deal as Aaref points out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I received an email from a credible source who prefers that I do not disclose his identify. He tells me: </p>
<p>While it is true that Zantaz did get a deal for an undisclosed financial institution (http://www.autonomy.com/content/News/Releases/2008/0103.en.html), as outlined correctly in a press release from Autonomy, there was no mention of the Desktop Legal Hold (DLH).</p>
<p>Additionally, the only mention of the Desktop Legal Hold as the deal driver came from a lone blogger that was picked up by other sources, the link to the blog is at: <a href="http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsID=11042&#038;pagtype=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsID=11042&#038;pagtype=all</a>. The entry itself is incorrect insofar as DLH did not exist when Autonomy purchased Zantaz (and, although we are not sure, we know from Analysts and have heard from others that DLH is vapor and not fully developed as of yet).</p>
<p>What I can tell you about the deal is that it was Citigroup and was not for DLH. The deal was for email archiving and services. While the deal was great for Zantaz, as there is no denying the size of the deal, it was not a DLH deal as Aaref points out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
