>Doug,
>
>>Hmm.. I think the notion behind the DOJ's intentions would be contained in the effects of splitting the two companies apart.
>>
>>Let me 'splain as best as I can...
>>
>>If the App side now wants to create a new software gizmo it must now refer to the API documentation that will now also be available to every other company wanting to write a new software gizmo. IOW, it's what is NOT there anymore. That is, the ability to have two APIs; one public and one (wink wink) behind the scenes.
>>
>>From a purely abstract, theoretical, ivory tower, I've never developed software, my theories are mine and the rest of the world had better agree to them or I'll use my power and grind you to powder in the court system, and oh yeah, how come you didn't put more of your obscene wealth into our political party point of view I suppose there's something to this....
>>
>><g>
>>
>>Thing is, there's still nothing to keep these folks from eating lunch with each other and (wink wink) talking about some new internal gadget. Ditch the email, print the API call, pass it on, use it and shred the paper. Or, publish the API and charge 1 billion dollars -equally to anyone who want it- for an opportuity to protect one's proprietary information. You get the drift...
>>
>>Besides the folks who run the federal government aren't at all interested in having some upstart software company having more power than they are.
>>
>>At the end of the day IMO this is about the federal government using it's power to protect it's monopoly on the strings of power.
>>
>>In one pass they took over 100 BILLION dollars worth of power out of the marketplace. Thing is though is that this isn't going to help in the long run.
>>
>Aw c'mon Doug. You can do better than this.:-)
>
>You really think that there are a bunch of "magic, hidden API calls"? Naw, there aren't and I'll tell you why for a couple of reasons.
>
>First, on the software side, a DLL must publish its exposed functions in the export table. Otherwise, they can only be called internally by function that is in the export table or is similarly called by an unexposed function.
>
>Second, all it would take is one disgrutled MS programmer to go running to the competition or on guy with a disassembler to find it out, which would lead to...
>
>Third, if they did exist, don't you think that Lotus and Corel, and who knows else, would've joined in on this suit.
>
>Bottom line is that the Platform SDK publishes everything that should be used. I've heard of, at least, admonishments from MS saying, "Don't do it. There's no guarantee that it'll be supported in the future." I've seen MS software fail because of this.
>
>The Win64 SDK has been out for at least a year. Longer if you include the docs published for NT 5.0. And, anyone can buy an MS Universal for $2,500 ($2,000 for a renewal). That may seem like a lot to some folks, but when you sit down and look at what you get, it's a pitance.

George,

<g>

Well, now I've gone and done it.

Sure, there *are* hidden codes in Microsoft's software. Easter eggs remember? Now, to what extent there is business related code that gives Microsoft a leg up I wouldn't really know for sure since I don't have that code. Nor do I think you do but I will absolutely agree with you that this would seem highly unlikely.

Essentially I do not think MSFT would do this

Everything I've seen would lead me to believe that Microsoft would never do this. Didn't they just recently fire three programmers for putting some 'extra' code in a product? They are too smart to do that as they are in no way going to take the chance.

Then, what's the government's case? I still think that a lot of this is political.

*shrug*

Best,

DD