Microsoft developers used undocumented APIs
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 Mhkrvold MS 5040157 CONFIDENTIAL
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
>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