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.

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits - Updated
Thursday, January 14 2010 @ 11:27 PM EST

As we are working on the data in the Comes v. Microsoft exhibits, describing the contents or transcribing each so as to make them keyword searchable, we are coming across some interesting materials regarding Microsoft's view of Linux. As far back as 1999, Bill Gates was asking his executives if there was a way to make things harder for Linux. For example, here's Comes Exhibit 3020:
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Westorinon; Ben Fathi
Cc: Carl Stork; Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI extensions

One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.

It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.

Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

1999. He wanted to patent something so as to hobble Linux and keep it from "working great".

Wait until you read about the EDGI program to keep folks in governments and educational institutions from switching to Linux, and then there is another exhibit that shows exactly how Microsoft tried to worm its way into OLPC and who helped it.

We're still deep into the transcribing, so I won't write much about the exhibits here, but take a look at this page, the Exhibits by Numbers page 4 (we had to divide it into 4 pages, because it became too long), and look for keyword EDGI and also keyword Linux and "Don't lose to Linux" or "never lose to Linux". It'll knock your socks off, what Microsoft is willing to do to beat Linux.

And the interesting part is to see how Microsoft viewed Linux just before SCO showed up on the scene. Look for exhibits 9644, 9683, 9685, 9677, 9679, 9687, and 9695, all PDFs. The last one is 2002, when SCO was just getting in gear, and Kevin Johnson writes, "Linux is good for business, you know." The impression I formed from these exhibits is that Microsoft was terrified of what one email called the "Linux infestation".

On that page, you'll find text describing the contents or a transcript of each.

And here is the exhibit that tells the OLPC story, what really happened, and no, it was not Nicholas Negroponte selling out. It's a much more nuanced story, in Exhibit 9643 [PDF]. The blurb from that same page, but I encourage you to read the original in full -- this is just to whet your appetite:

From: Martin Taylor
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:45
To: Orlando Ayala
Subject: RE: Recap of our meeting today with Rodrigo and Marcelo

Yikes. We should see how we can "target" the funds for specific research. There is a way to position this around MSFT willing to possibly give MORE if they do research on stuff that is mutually interesting. it could make sense. I think that is how Samsung structures there deal with Media Labs.

-- MT


From: Orlando Ayala
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Martin Taylor
Subject: FW: Recap of our meeting today with Rodrigo and Marcelo

gong backwards!


From: Craig Mundie
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:57 PM
To: Orlando Ayala; Will Poole; et al
Cc: Craig Fiebig
Subject: RE: Recap of our meeting today with Rodrigo and Marcelo

Targeted only at Media Lab. They are increasing investments at MIT overall I think (although our $25M five year deal on eCampus is also coming to an end this year I think). With Media Lab, they want to fund specific research but not put the money into a the big general fund...

[Ed: Craig Mundie et al discuss level of funding for Media Lab and MIT, wanting to reduce but not yet tell them. Looking for "some other organization, either my TCI work, or the product group, that wanted to fund the Media Lab" as opposed to MSR "and that is a start-from-scratch analysis". Will Poole suggests "I think we should name our new open source license and romance its creation. 'Education Open Source' or something like that. And offer that commercial terms can be established under such an agreement, thus enabling the best of open source and commercial software environments".]


From: Craig Mundie
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:47 PM
To: Tom Phillips; Will Poole et al
Cc: Orlando Ayala; Craig Fiebig
Subject: RE: Recap of our meeting today with Rodrigo and Marcelo

Remember that a key part of our strategy is to create a situation where even if Nick rejects us for philosophical reasons there is a long and visible history of our attempts to work with them and then we have to ask to get a license for the "open source hardware" and we will make our own offering on the commercial side.

[Ed: The meeting on Oct. 16 was in Miami to discuss "the work with the OLPCA." Microsoft sought "additional due diligence". "At the conclusion of the meeting, it was again clear that the central issue boils down to the OSS philosophy of Nick. In our meetings with Hector, he insisted that AMD has the capability to shift Nick into a more realistic state on the Open Source philosophy."

Yup. "Enabling the best of open source and commercial software environments..." And they are still at that goal.

We'd love to have your help with this project, if you'd like to download an exhibit and just briefly and accurately describe its contents or transcribe it fully. Just put your work in your plain text comment here. There are around 3,000 documents, and we're more than half done, so if you want to share in the project, it's now or never. And with that, I'm back to work.

Update: There is another threat from Bill Gates to use patents against a competitor, in #4023 [PDF], regarding StarOffice back in 1999: "At some point we will have to consider the patents they violate." I wonder if this exhibit means that they waited too long to go after


The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits - Updated | 180 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, January 14 2010 @ 11:45 PM EST
Please indicate text to be corrected in the title of your post.

Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about
the answers - Slothrup's Third Proverb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread
Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, January 14 2010 @ 11:47 PM EST
Please supply html links where appropriate. Example in red text at bottom of

Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about
the answers - Slothrup's Third Proverb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, January 14 2010 @ 11:50 PM EST
Please supply html links to your out-there references. Example in red text at
bottom of page:
<a href="">Like this</a>

Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about
the answers - Slothrup's Third Proverb

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits
Authored by: ozbird on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:07 AM EST
Very interesting!

I've never understood why BIOS developers don't use Intel's iasl compiler
instead of Microsoft's ASL compiler. Both compilers appear to be freely
available (, and Intel's does a better job of
detecting errors that Microsoft's misses - deliberately so, it seems.

This looks like another case of Microsoft corrupting standards for their own
nefarious purposes; another antitrust lawsuit in the making?

[ Reply to This | # ]

And most people won't believe this
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:10 AM EST

Even after they've read the original copies from Comes vs. Microsoft. How sad.


[ Reply to This | # ]

px06945.pdf .. email exchange between Steven Fell and Steve Banfield
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:12 AM EST
From: Steven Fell<br>
Sent: February 21, 2001 <br>
To: 'sbanfield at' <br>
Subject: RE: Any update on the Secure Audio Path for WinXP? <p>

Been working hard to gather information on this and wanted to get back to you.
... as you noted, Secure Audio Path (SAP) isn't a "new thing" as it is
already shipping <br>
in Windows Me. The WIred story that you've linked is full of inaccuracies, ...
... Using ... to protect content is completely discretionary: .... <br>
Microsoft does not ..... always "check for SAP before ..."
From: Steve Banfield [] <br>
Sent: February 14, 2001 <br>
To: Steven Fell <br>
Subject: RE: Any update on the Secure Audio Path for WinXP? <p>

We've been asked about a new feature in WinXP ...that will
allow content to be secure from player down through the driver
and out to the sound card. ...
so here's what we need to know <p>
a. What is this new thing? ... <p>
b. Is this a new API in the Win32 SDK? <p>
c. If not, is it in the new WMF SDK? <p>
d. If not, what SDK is it in? <p>
e. How do we get technical information about .. <p>
f. Is this something that is going to be broadly available to all Windows apps?
If it helps, heres a 2/15/01 Wired story about it in which Gary Schare is quoted
<p> <p>

[ Reply to This | # ]

px06948.pdf -- 73 page presentation
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:27 AM EST
Windows Media Platform Group <br>
Eclipse Review Series: Music Strategy <p>

Music Scenarios and Technology<p>

Music Team (geoffhar, ccallo, jpaddie, davidkai, davidhos, marktake)

(Draft) Mar 01 <p>
What We Hope to Accomplish Today <br>
Majority consensus on our music strategy <p>
Windows Media (codec, file format, DRM) and <br>
Windows Media Player are the technologies of choice<br>
for consumers and businesses for the digital creation, <br>
distribution, and playback, of music and music video<br>
anytime, anywhere, and on any device <p>
Assumptions (next 12 months) <p>
PC is central storage device for music in the hme <p>
We will continue to walk a "balance beam" between user experience and
content <br>
owner business needs<p>
CD's will be dominant/significant media for 2 + years <br>
.... <p>
More Windows media digital content activity will be generated by home
than will delivered by ICPs <p>
Our end game is to increase new consumer activity using Windows Media, and to
convert and/or increase current usage of Windows Media: <br>
..... <p>
Situation Analysis <p>
Labels under increasing pressure, are motivated to "lock content"
...... <p>
On-line sales are responsible for 1.6% of total music market today <br>
...... <p>
Adoption of latest platform/features is slow <br>
...... <p>
Situation Analysis <p>
Industry still in search of sustainable digital music business model <p>
Digital Downloads for sale a bust <br>
Advertising Models unable to deliver off-setting costs <br>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Negroponte defended the Free Software goal of OLPC
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:32 AM EST

Now we can see that Nick Negroponte staunchly defended the Free Software goal of OLPC. From the evidence of these emails we can see how Microsoft attacked it: they held meetings with other people connected to the OLPC project, at which Negroponte was not present, and cleverly persuaded them (1) that the project should not be entirely Free Software, and (2) to put pressure on Negroponte. Isolated, and apparently under pressure from all sides, Negroponte's position became more and more difficult to defend. Microsoft had several smart people working on this concurrently.

An especially interesting bit from the Microsoft internal emails: "the Board Members do not appear to have a deep understanding of Open Source, as evidenced by our discussion with Marcelo [Marcelo Claure, Brightstar President and CEO]. We spent a few minutes on open source and various licensing models, but this was all new to Marcelo."

Oh boy. "Open Source" as explained by Microsoft. Does anybody on Earth think Microsoft is qualified to give an impartial explanation of Free Software? Step One of the obfuscation is to call it "Open Source", of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GMail or Google can convert exhibit PDFs to text
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:56 AM EST
PJ asked in this comment if someone could test if GMail can be used to extract the OCRd text from the PDFs. Here is what I found, testing with exhibit 6733.

You can send an email to your gmail address with one or more PDF files as attachments. The subject and/or body can be blank or not as you wish. You can send the mail to yourself from the same GMail account or from another account including non-GMail. When you use GMail's web interface to view the mail, click on the link to View the PDF attachment, which will bring up Google's PDF viewer. Click on the "Plain HTML" link. That will give you the text without images and you can select, copy, and paste into an editor in another window.

You can also go directly to Google's PDF viewer without dealing with sending an email by prefixing the URL of the PDF file with

For example. to view exhibit 6733 in Google's PDF viewer follow this link

Unfortunately that way does not give you the Plain HTML link so selecting and copying the text is a little trickier. You have to swipe the mouse over the text to select it and then use the appropriate key for your platform to copy, Ctrl-C or Command-C. You can not use the select all key (Ctrl-A or Command-A) as that gets the document as an image, not the text.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits
Authored by: kenryan on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 06:56 AM EST
>One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we
>shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow
>Windows specific.

>It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our
>partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works
>great without having to do the work.

Anyone who has followed the Linux kernel development list over the years would
agree that BillG should not have worried... ACPI was a huge challenge due to
every BIOS vendor having a different interpretation of the spec and every OEM
having their own unique collection of bugs. I'm not aware of a single OEM
shipping a machine where ACPI fully worked as it was supposed to.

Microsoft doesn't have to go through the bother of patenting or hiding
interfaces. They just have to let their partners implement their usual
collections of bugs...

(speaking only for myself, IANAL)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Dilbert - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 07:54 AM EST
Comes Exhibits thread (maybe should be canonical?)
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 07:45 AM EST
I propose that we add a "Comes Exhibit" canonical thread to the
existing "group of three" (newspicks, corrections, off-topic) for each
article, so that one can more easily see what exhibits have been claimed for

In that light, unless I've missed it (and if I have, I hope the existing
claimant will speak up), I'll claim 0288-0296 just to get started.

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Linux Anti-Trust Smoking Gun?
Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:09 AM EST
I'm not aware of any current anti-trust litigation on this topic, but it
certainly looks like the Comes exhibits contain proof of monopoly abuse by
Microsoft in regards to hardware interoperability with Linux.

My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM EST
Just to play devil's advocate...

MSFT is a commercial company and in that sense has a responsibility to its
shareholders to beat down the competition.

The problem is, of course, if it engages in illegal, monopolistic, and/or
anti-trust practices to do so. Also, they should realize that working towards
open standards usually benefits everyone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What OEMs are really paying Microsoft for Windows
Authored by: phaoUNTOtom on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 12:56 PM EST
The following text was taken from page seven of PX09685.pdf at .

"Not to exceed the estimated Windows royalties recognized by MS from the
OEM selling the PC’s to the customer (in the example, 50,000 PC’s at approx.
$100/PC for OEM Windows XP Professional would result in a maximum of $5M for the
individual deal)."

Estimated at $100 dollars for each PC? I know when we compare the price
difference between two exact computers from OEMs with Windows and without
Windows, this $100 dollar savings not realized by us the purchaser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 01:08 PM EST
PX00420.pdf transcription. Errors are copied from original.
from newspimp; login not working.

I just got the premier issue of this thing, an incredibly impressive magazine
from the self-styled "National Windows Users Group Network, an idependent
technical organization. " that has been around since 1988 and has a section
on compuserv under the ms connection.

this thing is great. they are going to reprint the best of ms online; best of
mswin forum etc.

topics include: configuration forum; development forum; corp strategies; new
wave forum; connectivity forum; worksheet forum, words forum; dtp forum etc.

40% of their membership has experience with win development and they claim lots
of f1000 members.

we might want to think about how to use this for our benefit ( maybe we could
have interviews with key ms folks or something to keep them on the right
strategy - i.e. darrylr talking about our objects strategy to kill the new wave
enthusiasm ).

From markche Tue Oct 9 08:26:53 1990
To: bradsi russw w-maria
Cc: kathrynh w-carrin w-maria
Subject: Long Mail RE: dr dos
Date: Tue Oct 09 08:26:26 1990

Attached is a summary of dr dos 5 compatibility issues. The compatibility
testing was done by an outside lab - I have their formal write-up if you need
it. The Windows 3.0 compatibility testing was done internally.


General DR DOS 5.0 Compatibility Issues
1. Paradox/386

Paradox/386 fails when DR DOS 5.0 is loaded high with default parameters. A
"Protection Error" message is displayed on invocation of Paradox/386

2. Professional Oracle

Professional Oracle fails when DR DOS is loaded high with default parameter,
resulting in the display of the "Protection Error" message on


3. SpinRite

SpinRite fails when DR DOS is loaded high with default parameters.

4. Peachtree Complete Accounting

Peachtree Complete Accounting cannot be invoked with the startup command

('Peach') under DR DOS 5.0 whether DR DOS 5.0 is loaded high or low.

5. Other problems in DR DOS 5.0

A) Misc problems caused by Upper Memory Block Implementation

The automatic linking of UMBs (Upper Memory Blocks) into the DOS arena chain
will cause many problems for users. We know from talking to Qualitas and
Quarterdeck that there are many applications which hang if the arena chain goes
above the 640K limit. Examples of such applications include

If DR DOS 5.0 fails to load high, the HMA (The memory between 1MB and 1MB+64k)
is not deallocated. Thus no other application can use it. This is be a problem
for LAN manager and Novell environments set up to use the HMA.

B) Problem with the HIDOS driver

If the user loads the HIDOS driver, DR DOS 5.0 will try to move high even if the
user specifies HIDOS = OFF. This becomes very annoying if the user wants to load
Novell or LAN Manager in the HMA.

C) Problems with HIMEM drivers

DR DOS 5.0 is not friendly to other HIMEM (or XMS) drivers. For example, the
HIMEM.SYS driver shipped with Windows 3.0. DR DOS 5.0 will refuse to load high
under this XMS driver.

D) Problem with loading DR DOS high in certain configurations

On machines with 512 Bytes of system memory and extended memory, the HMA exists,
and the user will expect to be able to load DR DOS 5.0, but DR DOS 5.0 will
refuse to load high in this situation.

Windows 3.0 Compatibility Issues

DR DOS 5.0 provides the ability to be loaded high (to reduce the amount of lower
640K memory occupied by DOS. However there is no way to run DR DOS 5.0 high and
run Windows 3.0 at the same time. This is because to run high, DR DOS 5.0
requires the use of their EMM386.SYS or their HIDOS.SYS - either of which causes
problems for Windows 3.0.

DRI's EMM386 is used on Intel 386 based computers and it maps Upper Memory
Blocks into the DOS arena. This will cause Win 3 to get very upset. It will
hang. DRI states in their manual that in order to run Windows 3.0, you will need
to remove their EMM386 from the system. This could be very painful as it forces
the user to reboot in order to run Windows 3.0. This means that Windows 3.0
users can't get the benefit of a Dos loaded high using DR-Dos.

Using their HIDOS.SYS causes Windows 3.0 to issue an unrecognized himem driver
message and terminate. DOS critical section handling is broken. DOS has a very
sensitive mechanism for signaling when it enters and exits a critical section.
Windows uses its knowledge of that critical section behavior to keep DOS from
doing blocking I/O. DR DOS 5.0 fails to implement this property and causes
Windows trouble. The behavior will

be seen in a Dos VM running a program that calls Dos function 3fn (ReadChar from
Console). In this scenario, the user will experience what they believe is a
system hand. Even though they are not actually hung, it will be tricky for the
them to figure out how to get out of the situation and they will likely reboot.

The following is a scenario under which problems would arise:

1. Run any communications app in Windows 3.0.

2. Now start a VM and run any of the following:

a. The C compiler
b. 4DOS (a very popular shareware utility)
c. The Macro Assembler
d. Link (which is included with MS-DOS)
e. Copy Con filename commands (which many setup programs use)

Macro Assembler (or a number of other -C Compiler, "4DOS" which is a
very popular shareware product, Link, copy con filename commands which many
setup programs user - all of these are other examples.

What the user sees is a start up banner and nothing else in the VM Windows.
Further, since the VM hang is now blocking windows apps from doing anything, all
the windows apps freeze up too. The result in this case is loss of data coming
in through the communications program.

There are a number of similar scenarios where the users will beleive they

are hung, will then reboot and lose some data as a result. It is generally not a
good idea to reboot when Windows 3.0 is running. Lost FAT clusters and cross
linked allocation chains can result.

Password Protection Problems

This feature of DR DOS 5.0 is very poorly implemented. It simply marks the file
as hidden. Running MS-DOS 5.0 or OS/2 to look at one of these files completely
bypasses any security. Further, any shell program like PC-Shell from Central
Point or the Norton shell (or the MS-DOS 5.0 Shell) will ignore the hidden
attribute and allow the user to see and open these files. No attempt is made to
try and make the files really secure, even from within the DR DOS 5.0

The result is that users who rely on this feature to provide real security for
the data are severely misled, for there is no protection that is anything close
to secure. The password protection can be very easily defeated by anyone with
MS-DOS 5.0, OS/2 or a common third party shell program.

> From wmaria Mon Oct 8 19:33:02 1990
To: bradsi markchu russw
Cc: kathrynh w-carrin w-maria
Subject: dr dos

Date Mon Oct 8 15:25:55 1990

What can we really say about bonafide compatibility issues with DR DOS. I always
hear vague stuff about this taht relates to MS products which make us look
self-serving. If we have a real "user alter" type story to tell about
DR DOS compatibility issues, PR should be all over it.

I don't think compatibility problems with a future, unshipping Microsoft
products is a very good story. Then the press could say, "good, if it's not
shipping, you have time to fix it..."

FUD about compatibility is our best weapon but we need real stuff. Any input?

From debbieh Tue Oct 9 08:27:08 1990
To: bradsi maryho sharonh
Subject: Re: sys guy

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits
Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM EST
So this leads one to question, based on the evidence presented, why the DoJ
hasn't initiated Racketeering charges against Microsoft's Executive Officers
thus far?

When you have a CEO [e.g. one Mr. William Gates] directing others within his
organization to intentionally inhibit others from competing competition on a
level playing field, this is called monopolistic practices.

Barring the Attorney Generals office broaching this issue, can the F/OSS
community [or individuals] not initiate charges against these Microsoft
executives directly? e.g. Can I as an individual, not hire a lawyer to apply to
the court for criminal charges to be levied against Mr. Gates?

On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
8th day SCO litigated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Order is out!
Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 06:46 PM EST
Motion to lift stay denied.

SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents vs trade secrets
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:44 AM EST
Reading through Exhibit 8175 Microsoft Document - VinodV 5/19/99 - Our Linux Strategy

I noticed this quote “Letting our protocols become commoditizied is a recipe for failure. We must Innovate and keep our great advancements to ourselves.” [page 2 point 2].

Looking at the email quoted in the article where it seems patents are only being mentioned as a means to stifle competitors. I think it shows how software patents are not being used to promote innovation as patents were intended.

Also of note on page 1 it's said Microsoft is mainly an IP company depending on closed source to keep trade secrets.
Can something be patented and still a trade secret?
Or are patents only being used to prevent competing software?

[ Reply to This | # ]

ACPI feature / bug
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 01:35 AM EST

In mid 2008 blogger Ryan replaced an old motherboard with a new one.
and was met by ACPI errors affecting Linux but not Windows.
He complained very loudly to the MB manufacturer, Foxconn, and on the
Ubuntu Forum.

Eventually he made contact the right people at Foxconn and determined
that the bug came with the AMI BIOS. After the bug was known AMI corrected it.

Ryan was very explicit in his analysis, showing that Microsoft
had anticipated and circumvented a BIOS bug long before the bug even had been
introduced in the BIOS.

I cannot find the archived blogs but all is not forgotten on the Internet:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Partial transcript of PX07871.pdf
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 05:12 PM EST
Pages 1 to 14 out of 40 transcribed.


From: Ben Slivka
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 1997 10:21 PM
To: Mark Lucovsky
Subject: FW: updated: *proposed* Microsoft API Strategy

Mark, long time no see!
I've been learning about Java, and I've got what might
appear to be a pretty radical proposal for Windows & Java.
I would love to discuss this with you at your earliest
I'm meeting with natbro, bshah, deb black Friday,
10:30-11:30, 26N/2179 - feel free to crash this meeting!
Thanks, bens

---Original Message---
From: Ben Slivka
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 1997 10:14 PM
To: John Ludwig; Paul Gross; Bob Muglia; Brad
Silverberg; Jim Allchin (Exchange); Nat Brown; Bharat Shah
Deborah Black; Tod Nielsen; Brad Lovering;
Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky; Aaron Contorer; Thomas
Reardon; Richard McAniff
Subject: updated: *proposed* Microsoft API Strategy

Please feel free to send me any and all feedback.
In constrast to my last attempt, this time I tried to
answer the key questions up front.
I understand the focus on Java may strike some as
excessive, but I've been studying this issue for four
months, and this
is where my head is at today. Please fire away!
Thanks, bens

API Strategy

MSS 0168274

Plaintiff's Exhibit 7871 Comes V. Microsoft
MS-DEPEX 006733

Microsoft API Strategy:
Java is our Destiny


1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 1

MSS 0168275
MS-DEPEX 006734

The Windows Platform

* Challenges
> Maintain Windows marketshare and revenue
> Surf the Java wave
* Opportunities
> Improve software developer productivity
(for our customers and ourselves!)
> Position Windows for the 21st Century

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 2

MSS 0168276
MS-DEPEX 006735

Java is the Answer

* Java improves developer productivity
> Java is to C/C++ as C is to ASM
* Java improves software scalability
(client and server) for the 21st Century
* Java supercedes the DLL architecture
of Windows
* Java is a wonderful opportunity to
modernize and enhance Windows

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 3

MSS 0168277
MS-DEPEX 006736

Three Big Questions

* Will Java ever match the execution
speed of C/C++? /we will get close/
* What about Cross Platform?
/a red herring/
* Doesn't this make Windows a
commodity (drive MSFT[down])? /no/

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 4

ATTORNEYS ONLY [Ed: [down] is a down arrow]
MSS 0168278 [Ed: // is italicized text]
MS-DEPEX 006737

Java Execution Speed

* Issues:
> Raw Java code speed
> Garbage collection overhead
> Overhead of calling Native OS services
* Solutions:
> Optimizing Java compiler produces x86 code
> Extensive GC work, Windows kernel changes
> Rewrite some OS services in Java (AFC)
> Simplicity of language permits sophisticated
optimization and tuning (code and data Lego,
whole program analysis)
> May get "PCode" benefits (working set, load time)

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 5

MSS 0168279
MS-DEPEX 006738

Java Execution Speed (2)

* Real Data /we have lots of ideas to try/
> LZX Decompressor (2.17 x slower)
> 41.62 seconds -- C
> 90.30 seconds -- Java
> Garbage Collection
> [need #s from pdussud]

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 6

ATTORNEYS ONLY [Ed: // is italicized text]
MSS 0168280
MS-DEPEX 006739

What About Cross Platform?

* Application Foundation Classes
_run on any browser, OS, CPU,_
but are _optimized for Win32_
* This is a developer safety blanket for
our customers and ourselves
> Cross platform apps will never be as
rich as Windows apps -- it's our job to
ensure this tautology remains true!
* We need to do a better job of cross
platform than our competitors!

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 7

ATTORNEYS ONLY [Ed: __ is underlined text]
MSS 0168281
MS-DEPEX 006740

Doesn't this Kill Windows?

* Windows is more than just an API set
> Setup, device drivers, plug&play, installed base
of applications, networking, utilities
> At Home: Rich Multimedia is key, Windows
and DirectX are the winners
> At Work: Investment in Windows by end-users,
IT groups, lots of Windows data
> At Large: ISVs, Solution Providers,
consultants, books, press, analysts, resellers

-> Windows has awesome positive momentum

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 8

MSS 0168282
MS-DEPEX 006741

... Kill Windows? (2)

* We will continue to enhance
Windows in concert with Java
> MMX performance tuning
> Better and better multimedia
> P7 Java instructions (GC, array
bounds, exception handling, ...)
> New native storage (???)
> Other new Windows services

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 9

MSS 0168283
MS-DEPEX 006742

... Kill Windows? (3)

* 20th Century Windows /was/ the
result of our faith in the advantages
of GUI and great execution
* 21st Century Windows /will be/ a
result of our faith in Java's
architectural benefits and more
great execution

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 10

MSS 0168284
MS-DEPEX 006743

Key Java Architectural

* No memory trashing
* Garbage collection
* Threading
* Security/Safety
* Versioning/Package
* RAD Tools

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 11

ATTORNEYS ONLY [Ed: // is italicized text]
MSS 0168285
MS-DEPEX 006744

20th Century Windows(R)

+-----------+ +--------------+ GUI APIs
| ASM,C,C++ | | Any Language | > Win32
+-----------+ +--------------+ > MFC
| | > VB
+-----------+ +--------------+
| DLL | | COM | Problems
+-----------+ +--------------+ > Pointers
/ > Memory Trashing
/ > Safety/Security
/ > Reference Counting
+----------------------------+ > Threading
| "The Operating System" | > Versioning

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 12

MSS 0168286
MS-DEPEX 006745

21st Century Windows(R)

+----+ +------+
| VB | | Java |- - - -+ GUI APIs are AFC
+----+ +------+ > SGL (UI+FX)
| / | > Trident
| / |
+------------+ +-----+ Benefits
| | MS Java VM | | COM | > No Pointers
+------------+ +-----+ > Garbage Collection
| | | > Threading
+- - - - +---+------+ > Safety/Security
| > Versioning
| "The Operating System" | _Developer Productivity!!_

1/24/97 Microsoft Confidential 13

ATTORNEYS ONLY [Ed: __ is underlined text]
MSS 0168287
MS-DEPEX 006746

[ Reply to This | # ]

Star Office The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 09:31 AM EST
I apologize that this is not an exhibit update.

Regarding the 4023 exhibit.

"It is a good product developed by a surprisingly lean team of

"...if I were oracle or sun, i'd think abt either supporting star..."

As we know, Sun now owns Star Office. This furthers my concern that the only
reason Microsoft is opposing the acquisition of Sun by Oracle is to disrupt Star
Office and Open Office, not the issue of Oracle controlling MySQL. That is only
the tool they are using.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Exhibit 7304 "MS-DOS 5 vs. DR-DOS 5 Comparison"
Authored by: brindafella on Sunday, January 24 2010 @ 10:19 PM EST

I chose this at random, and may work on a transcription.

Comes Exhibit 7304 "MS-DOS 5 vs. DR-DOS 5 Comparison"

MS-DOS 5 vs. DR-DOS 5 Comparison

Page 1 headed (hand-written) "From: Sergiop"
footer stamp: "Plaintiff's Exhibit 7304 Comes V. Microsoft"
Pages (4) footered:
2. Stamps: "X 570856 CONFIDENTIAL" to "X 570859"
3. Corresponsing stamps "MS-PCA 1162326 CONFIDENTIAL" to MS-PCA 1162329".
Note: Page 1 has additional handwritten marking before MS-PCA stamp, "Ex 336".

On 3 1/4 pages, this comparison gives details from a 28 June 1991 report by NSTL (National Software Testing Labs, adding references to research by "Digital Research", and Infoworld's review of Dr-DOS 5 (27 May 1991). Major headings: Compatibility (1 page), Memory Management (2 1/4 pages).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits - Updated
Authored by: brindafella on Sunday, January 24 2010 @ 10:44 PM EST

Comes Exhibit 5709

"Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5709 Comes V. Microsoft
IBM 7510251980
Emails (in sequence):
John Manopoli to Noah Mendelsohn, 26 May 1995, 01:55:16 PM (shown as 05/26/95 01:55:16 PM) ("Thanks for the update.")
Noah Mendelsohn to John Manopoli (segment shown, no time/date)
Sara Williams (saraw @ to Noah Mendelsohn (Noah_Mendelsohn.LOTUS @ 8 May 1995 08:30:49 PM (shown as 05/08/95 08:30:49 PM)

Email exchange, mostly a message from Sara Williams to Lotus' Noah Mendelsohn concerning "controls", mentioning 0LE Control Containers and MS's VB.

To: Noah Mendelsohn
cc: Tom Lemberg, Alex Morrow
From: John Manopoli
Date: 05/26/95 01:55:16 PM
Thanks for the update.

* * * Previous Memo History * * *
From: Noah Mendelsohn
The following note from Sara is in reference to our ongoing discussion as to why Microsoft’s documentation and support for OCX container development is so far inferior to that provided for OLE 2.0 itself and other Win APIs.

To: Noah_Mendelsohn.LOTUS @ @ INTERNET
cc: bradstr @ INTERNET, doughe @ @ INTERNET, saraw @ @ INTERNET (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn)
From: saraw @ {Sara Williams) @ INTERNET
Date: 05/08/95 08:30:49 PM
Subject: controls update


I wanted to give you an update on the issues that we discussed during our phone call last week.

As I mentioned on the phone, there are several other ISVs who have very succesfully implemented 0LE Control Containers, based solely on Kraig Brockscbmidt’s sample and accompanying document. In fact, I met another one last week. So, I find it difficult to understand why you feel that you don’t have all the information that you need. A list of issues that you feel are unclear or ambigous in the specification and Kraig’s document and sample would be very helpful to me.

However, I’m working with our VB group to see if they will consider you as a beta candidate. This would be with a special non-disclosure agreement that listed the specific developers who could use the VB beta, that they would use it solely for the purpose of testing your OLE controls implementation, and that those developers would have no contact with the groups at Lotus who are working on potentially competitive technology. Again, I have not heard back from the VB group; I will let you know when I do.

I am still looking into your questions about using the property set code from the CDK, and I’ll let you know as soon as I’ve got an answer for you.


Sara Williams

"Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5709 Comes V. Microsoft"

IBM 7510251980

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Linux Story As Told in the Comes Exhibits - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 26 2010 @ 08:21 AM EST
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Westorinon; Ben Fathi
Cc: Carl Stork; Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI extensions

One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the
"ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.
In what way the "ACPI" extensions were made "somehow Windows
specific" and remained so until now, seams to be an open question on a
closed source. But whatever they did, they did it wrong. Just google "acpi
problem windows " to see the result of what they did (or not did).

[ 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 )