------
PLAINTIFF'S EXIBIT 1413 Comes v. Microsoft
>From bradsi Thu Aug 27 08:40:39 1992
To: cameronm jonl mikeemap paula
Subject: undoc api's
Date: Thu Aug 27 08:40:38 1992
Status: RO
we can doc the api's we know the apps group (and other isv's) use.
this is a good practice. though it's not as straightforward as it
appears, since some of the calls depend on context and an
understanding of the source, which is explained in detail in mail i
forwarder from david d'souza.
the biggest advantage our apps group has is access to the operating
systems source. as long as this continues, the issue will never go
away.
in fact, jimall has long been assuming that the apps group did not
have source access. .he has been telling isv's this, too. when i told
him yesterday that this was not the case, he had that "oh shit" look
on his face.
the apps group does not need access to the source, it's a matter that
they have been grown accustomed to it. the fact that other companies
have been able to product world-class windows products (eg. Borland
Quattro Pro, Paradox, Lotus Ami Pro 3.0, Freelance, etc) is proof of
that.
s to (a) doc the api's we know apps group is using, and (b) give the
apps group the same access to sources we give to other isvs. [ie, in
certain limited circumstances.] if we don't do (b), the issue will
never die
EXIHIBIT 53 9/6/01 Mykrvold
MS 5040157
CONFIDENTIAL
------
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01413.pdf
------
PLAINTIFF'S EXIBIT 1614 Comes v. Microsoft
Erik Stevenson
From: Dessis Adler
To: bradsi; davidcol
Subject: FW: Undoc APIs document
Date: Monday, April 12, 1993 5:49PM
fyi.
>From Bill Miller
To: Dennis Adler
Subject: RE: Undoc APIs document
Date: Monday, April 12, 1993 12:52PM
thx for the input. Unfortunately, this is a doc that reflects
management's view on this entire subject. Jeffpr inherited the
project. I plan to kill it. Unless we (billg/mikemap) are willing to
acknowledge our "sloppiness", I don't believe that a piece like this
helps.
From: Dennis Adler
To: Jeff Price
Cc: Bill Miller; David Cole
Subject Undoc APIs documnet
Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1993 7:51PM
Short and sweet (or sour). I've red thru most of the materials you
sent along, and they are awfull. You never addressed the issues
Schulman raised in his mail. You continue to say, "There was no
advantage to MS in using these APIs." Get real. You mean to tell me
that the Word & Excel teams put in a bunch of API calls that did not
think would help them in a particular area? I hope not!!
There is even one case (QCWin) where the "documented" use for the API
SetMessageQueue enables QCWin to wait until the app it is debugging
has a msg queus in place before sending it messages; this is clearly
advantageous. By ignoring the very valid points Schulman has raised,
you make a sham of the entire exercise of documenting the APIs now. It
comes across as a cover-up, plain and simple. In fact, you are saying
that Schulman is either confused or lying. That does not seem to be
the case to me.
I gave up reading the whole document, as this tone of denail continues
ad nausem. Why not just document the APIs, preface the document with
some HONEST history [ yes, we did use undoc'd API's, yes we now have a
policy in place of not doing that - a policy that was not in place
previously, and here is the documentation for these APIs that we have
utilized].
Stop trying to pretend that we did not do this to gain a competitive
advantage, however slight. If that is not why these programmers used
the undoc'd APIs in the code, then give me a plausable explaination
for why they did. truthful would be nice.
The people who read this document are no stupid, and they would have
to be to believe what was written. I think this doc can do as much [or
more] harm as good as presently written.
EXH 32 DATE 2/13/02
Witness Silverberg
MAry W Miller
MS 7092083
CONFIDENTIAL
-------
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01614.pdf
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070127202224445
|