decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Finishing up the Comes Collection - Please Can You Help? - Updated 2Xs
Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:00 PM EST

Please will you help me? Erwan and I are going nuts working on the Comes collection, trying to make it more useful, so people can find what they might be looking for. We have it now in a structure that I think will work well -- although it may not yet be obvious since I haven't done the introduction explaining the new structure (I will! I will!) -- thanks mostly to Erwan's ingeniousness, but now I'd really appreciate your contributions so we can finish it up. The material is essentially a dump of all the data that the plaintiffs in Comes v. Microsoft put on their website, including transcripts of the trial and all the exhibits entered into the case. We're trying to give the data a more meaningful structure so that it will be possible to search by keyword and find particular items in the huge collection.

There are two tasks in particular that we'd really like you to help with.

[ Update: I've been working on the end of the list, working to meet the rest of you who are starting at the beginning, and there are some fascinating exhibits in this group. Don't miss 9695, what I'd like to name "The Truth about TCO", a report on an IDC study in 2002 on TCO, comparing Linux and Microsoft on servers. It showed that Linux beat Microsoft on TCO and was more reliable, with less down time. The Microsoft employees debate whether or not to let customers read the report. My favorite quotation: "Linux is good for business." And you don't want to miss the complete email thread about the famous "by no means lose to Linux" email in Exhibit 9685. Also not to be missed is the email about EDGI and how to spin it that Microsoft budgeted to make sure they didn't lose to Linux by offering services or even rebates, and not only in developing countries, in Exhibit 9687. And for sheer ironic pleasure, you can't beat Exhibit 9709, Microsoft's promises in 2006 not to be bad, called "Microsoft Windows Principles; Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition", including a promise to share APIs.]

[Update 2: Take a look at this document, Exhibit 9683 [PDF], will you? It's beyond belief. If you were wondering, as I was, why the Czech Republic and Hungary went with Microsoft instead of Linux, you will find out why in this breakdown of how EDGI works. Doing this work on the Comes exhibits is so worth doing!]

First, getting back to tasks to be done, and most important is to finish the brief blurbs describing what is in a a particular exhibit in our list of exhibits by number. I've done a couple of hundred of them, and I'll tell you the truth. I can't face doing any more for a bit. Can you please take a few and post in a comment what is in them?

If it's an email, you need to note to whom, from whom, date, and subject, of course. But then it is important to look for what matters in the email. Ask yourself: why did the lawyers in Comes think this was important? So, you want to look for whether it's about DRI or WordPerfect or whatever. It's interesting material, so you'll enjoy that part, I think. After you finish your input, then Erwan will put it all into our list of exhibits by number.

We are particularly interested in any materials that talk about Novell and to drill down even more in any materials about APIs and sharing, or not sharing them, with Novell. To review, this is particularly what Novell and Microsoft, locked in litigation over WordPerfect (next hearing on this in February), can't find:

It has to do with whether or not Microsoft made certain APIs available, like IShellBrowser, iShellView, iPersistFolder, and iCommDlgBrowser. Novell says Microsoft decided to make those APIs private and iShellFolder a "read only public interface", making it impossible for Novell to use the namespace extension mechanism or implement it in a customized fashion, so Novell software couldn't rely on or invoke those APIs. The context is Windows 95 and NT, in the years between 1994 and 1996.

Microsoft claims it did publish them or give them to ISVs. Microsoft witnesses talk about b-list API documentation being provided to companies on request. B-list here means APIs that Microsoft didn't promise to support going forward or that might not work. One witness, Robert Muglia, says that it wasn't just on request, that "they were in the SDK; they were talked about at conferences; they were brought up; they were available, period, not just on request; we didn't say they were internal interfaces only; we never told -- we may have told people they might not work in the next version of Windows or in NT, but clearly people were able to use them". But where is there evidence of that, other than people saying so, Novell asks?

The other topics of dispute are about some studies of Microsoft's logo certification that were allegedly done between 1993 and 1996 (an end user study in 1993 and a "May 1996 Marketing Research, Microsoft Internal Study") and about Microsoft's Windows 95 printing subsystem.

In the Paul Maritz deposition, reference is made to an email "from Belfiore to Shulman attaching the documentation" of the namespace extensions. All of this is found in the Appendix [PDF].

Novell, in one interrogatory, had a definition of Namespace APIs:

"NAMESPACE APIs" refer to IShellFolder, IEnumIDList, IShellBrowser, IShellView, IPersistFolder, and ICommDigBrowswer and any other application programming interfaces that enabled application developers to integrate into the Windows 95 and/or Windows NT shell, including "b-list" namespace APIs.
And in interrogatory 21, Novell asked Microsoft to identify all communications between it and any ISVs between October 1994 and July 1996 concerning namespace APIs. Microsoft told Novell to find it itself, but it can't find anything like that. I wonder if any of you have noticed anything like that in your reading of the Comes trial exhibits? They also asked Microsoft about MAPI changes between 3.1 and 95, and about APIs in Windows 95 communicated to ISVs to enable them to implement a custom print processor, to enable background printing. The APIs for that would be GetJob, SetJob, PrintDocumentOnPrintProcessor, AddPrintProcessor, and DeletePrintProcessor.

Novell found some already, and so did we, as you know, but let's finish it all. You might want to also review Microsoft's latest filing [PDF], to see what they are claiming.

Second, we have all the transcripts from the trial as HTML now. If you click on the link that says HTML, you'll find each day's transcript and at the top a list of the exhibits used that day. Here's an example. Note that there is a link to the exact place in the transcript where each exhibit is mentioned. Thank you Erwan and whoever dreamed up scripts! On each day, certain exhibits were used and entered into the record, and the transcripts will mention the number of the exhibit, and you can see from what is said about each exhibit what it was about and how it was used.

But what we need to do to make it really useful, I think, is to put links to the exhibits listed for each day. So if anyone would like to take a day and do that HTML to put in the link to our exhibits by numbers list, I'd deeply appreciate it. Just leave a comment that you are taking a certain day and either post a plain text comment showing the HTML so I can copy and paste or email me a plain text email with the HTML showing.

Thank you if you can help with this. Let me know if you want credit and if so, how you wish to be identified.

Third, in a perfect world, I'd like to do this too: You will notice that there are four videos mentioned on the main summary page of trial testimony. We have the Gates videos, but if anyone saved the other three way back then, please sing out. That would be Richard Williams, Richard Freedman, and Mark Chestnut. Anyone have the foresight to save those back then? I confess I did not notice them until we worked on this collection with a fine-toothed comb recently, and I regret that failure. And I can't find them online to date, so if you can, please tell us where you found them, and download them quickly.

So. That's the project, and I hope you will help. I think it will matter a lot, not only in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust litigation but for historians and maybe future litigations. You never know. And this is the kind of thing that Groklaw was born for.


Finishing up the Comes Collection - Please Can You Help? - Updated 2Xs | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:14 PM EST
If any.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Helping on transcripts.
Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:41 PM EST

I think the work requested on each transcript is not that difficult. But multiply it by 39 trial transcripts (plus 17 hearing transcripts soon to be published as HTML on Groklaw) and it gets quite daunting for a single person.

So if you feel like helping, please, leave a note in this thread on which day's transcript you are working on.

I think this could be done for each transcript:

  • check each page linked from the table.
  • sort plaintiff's from defendant's exhibits. Make a note of it in the table.
  • if it's a plaintiff's one, it would be great to make a hyperlink to the PDF in Groklaw's collection (in the table, and in the transcript)
  • read the transcript to spot any exhibit a dumb script can't.
    (eg, at page 2664: "Let's change to 1332 just -- now look," or at page 2714: "When you see this exhibit, it is 402, you will see that he..." )
  • Make a short note of what each exhibit is in the table.

Once you've updated the HTML for the given transcript + table, please email it to pj (AT)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Richard Williams testimony in Caldera vs Microsoft (1998)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:42 PM EST
wget icrosoft_1998/Richard_Williams_testimony_1998_small.ogg

About 90M

[ Reply to This | # ]

Elementary My Dear Watson....It's Called The Public Domain... Or Is It?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:49 PM EST

I'm confused about why the html is messed up but I think this is close enough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Plaintiff Exhibit 551 (PX00551)
Authored by: Laomedon on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:51 PM EST
January Status Report from Downing Accounting Team, dated Feb 7, 1991. Revenue
forecasts, DRI related, customer account summaries.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Helping on exhibit descriptions.
Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM EST

Reading these exhibits can be very interesting and it's easy to do ten at a time but documenting 3000 of them...

To make sure we avoid duplicating work (as much as possible) could we leave comments in this thread were the title would give a range (eg: doing 1700 to 1739).

Many plaintiff's exhibits had the same number in Comes and in Gord on. So if we can check the Gordon exhibits at the same time this will greatly help PJ documenting that as well.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Finishing up the Comes Collection - Please Can You Help?
Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM EST
The testimony in audio was nothing to find:

Richard Williams testimony audio on

Richard Freedman testimony audio on

Mark Chestnut testimony audio on

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mark Chestnut videos
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 02:14 PM EST

Here is the small (99 MB) ogg version.

And here is the big (289 MB) one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Richard Freedman Videos
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 02:28 PM EST

Here is the small (173 MB) ogg.

And here is the big (498 MB) one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are these things?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 05:42 PM EST
Thanks for your work on this very important and intricate case. I got my first
real glimpse of what happens at trial when the jury is absent.

IANAL, I don't know if I can help. I was puzzled by something though. I don't
seem to know what parts are there, what parts need work. I may be only finding
what's been done.

I was reading the first trial record I could find. It started out with a
continuation of "complaints", if that is the correct term, as part of
opening arguments possibly, at number 352. I was trying to establish my
bearings from the opening of trial. Where would one find the first 351,
instructions and the like.

I was looking for the thousands of exhibits but only found a handful.

May I be so bold as to suggest a table of spreadsheet be generated to identify
each item with columns to be filled in by those doing the reviews. I think PJ
has done things like this before. If you have it already I missed it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibits missing from Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 06:02 PM EST
In case there's any interest:

The "missing" exhibit PDFs from 16, 17 and 18 Jan 2007 are available
from ''. Unfortunately, it appears that updates to
the site didn't really happen much after the 18th. I've made local copies in
case the site goes missing but it'd probably be faster/better to get them
directly from the source.

-- A.Tribble

[ Reply to This | # ]

At stake
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 03:53 AM EST
I haven't followed this case as closely or as attentive as I feel I should have. What is at stake? Search old Groklaw articles, this is an antitrust case, where Microsoft wishes to annihilate, eg Novell using phrases like:

"We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger....If you're going to kill someone, there isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger."

That gave the old saying "Never trust a smiling Microsoft representative" a whole new meaning.



[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Source of the quote - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM EST
  • At stake - Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM EST
    • At stake - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 07:43 PM EST
      • At stake - Authored by: dwiget001 on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 12:07 PM EST
        • At stake - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, December 29 2009 @ 05:18 AM EST
  • At stake - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 29 2009 @ 11:49 AM EST
Authored by: schestowitz on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 07:34 AM EST
We have loads of exhibits as plain text right here, as well as in many other posts. There is a lot of room for reuse.

Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Thanks but no thanks? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM EST
  • Reuse - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 03:09 PM EST
    • Reuse - Authored by: schestowitz on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 03:32 PM EST
    • Reuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 12:13 AM EST
Reply of Petrofsky to Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion of Petrofsky
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM EST
Is up on EPIQ.. #1007

Posted here because there is no OT thread under this article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM EST
Off Topic posts

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 06:57 PM EST
I have only just realised that this is not "members only" and so
should have the canonical threads.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anonymuos contributions
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 07:37 AM EST
I have done some of the anonymous contributions. It doesn't
feel right to contribute this way.

Is it possible for mee to get an account?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm starting with 0401 - 0449
Authored by: brooker on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 11:06 AM EST
I've spent this morning reading through the Comes pages (and this page) trying
to get up to speed and to find exhibits that still need to be worked on.

I'll be starting with 0401 thru 0449 today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )