[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

ms developers used undocumented API's ..

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 

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 

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

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 

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 

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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index