---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#alternate Edit this page Wikipedia (en)
AARD code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
An example of the error messages the AARD would produce.
The AARD code was a segment of code in a beta release of Microsoft
Windows 3.1 that would determine whether Windows was running on MS-DOS
or PC DOS, rather than a competing workalike such as DR-DOS, and would
result in a cryptic error message in the latter case. This
XOR-encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated machine code
used a variety of undocumented DOS structures and functions to perform
its work. The code was present in the installer, in WIN.COM, and in
several other executables in the operating system.^[1]
[ ]
Contents
* 1 Discovery
* 2 Memos
* 3 Lawsuit and settlement
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 Further reading
Discovery[edit]
The AARD code was originally discovered by Geoff Chappell on 17 April
1992 and then further analyzed and documented in a joint effort with
Andrew Schulman.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The name was derived from
Microsoft programmer Aaron R. Reynolds (1955-2008),^[7] who used "AARD"
to sign his work; "AARD" was found in the machine code of the
installer.^[8]^[9] Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final
release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it, so that it could have
become reactivated later by the change of a single byte in an installed
system.^[5]
DR-DOS publisher Digital Research released a patch named "business
update" in 1992 to enable the AARD tests to pass on its operating
system.^[10]^[11]^[12]
Memos[edit]
The rationale for the AARD code came to light when internal memos were
released during the United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case in
1999. Internal memos released by Microsoft revealed that the specific
focus of these tests was DR-DOS.^[1]^[13]^[14] At one point, Microsoft
CEO Bill Gates sent a memo to a number of employees, reading "You never
sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that
would make it run with MS-DOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there [sic]
feature they have that might get in our way?"^[12]^[15] Microsoft
Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating:
"What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he
has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy
MS-DOS."^[12]^[15]
Following the purchase of DR-DOS by Novell and its renaming to "Novell
DOS", Microsoft Co-President Jim Allchin stated in a memo, "If you're
going to kill someone there isn't much reason to get all worked up
about it and angry. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We
need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger."^[16]^[12]^[15]
Lawsuit and settlement[edit]
Novell DOS changed hands again. The new owner, Caldera, Inc., began a
lawsuit against Microsoft over the AARD code, Caldera v.
Microsoft,^[12]^[17]^[18]^[19] which was later
settled.^[15]^[20]^[21]^[22] It was originally believed that the
settlement was around $150 million,^[23] but in November 2009 the
Settlement Agreement was released, and the total was revealed to be
$280 million.^[24]^[21]^[22]^[25]
See also[edit]
* Bug compatibility
* Fear, uncertainty and doubt
* Halloween documents
References[edit]
1. ^ ^a ^b Reynolds, Aaron R. (1993-02-24) [1991-12-06]. "msdos
detection - hot job for you" (PDF) (Court document). MS-PCA
1164868-1164869; X0532177-X0532178; Comes v. Microsoft Exhibit
1133; Gates Deposition Exhibit 85. Archived (PDF) from the original
on 2018-08-03. Retrieved 2018-08-04. (NB. This court document is a
copy of a mail by Aaron Reynolds written in 1991 and forwarded by
one of its recipients, Phil Barrett, in 1993.)
2. ^ Chappell, Geoff (2011-11-24) [1999-09-03, 1992-04-17]. "Record of
AARD Research". Archived from the original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved
2016-11-25. (Web article published by Geoff Chappell on 3 September
1999 about an e-mail sent to Andrew Schulman on 17 April 1992.)
3. ^ Chappell, Geoff (2011-11-24) [1999-05-08]. "First Public AARD
Details". Archived from the original on 2013-04-02.
4. ^ Schulman, Andrew (September 1993). "Examining the Windows AARD
Detection Code - A serious message--and the code that produced it".
Dr. Dobb's Journal. Miller Freeman, Inc. 18 (9): 42, 44-48, 89.
#204. Archived from the original on 2005-12-10. Retrieved
2013-10-05.
5. ^ ^a ^b Schulman, Andrew; Brown, Ralf D.; Maxey, David; Michels,
Raymond J.; Kyle, Jim (1994) [November 1993]. Undocumented DOS: A
programmer's guide to reserved MS-DOS functions and data structures
- expanded to include MS-DOS 6, Novell DOS and Windows 3.1 (2 ed.).
Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-63287-X. (xviii+856+vi pages, 3.5-inch
floppy) Errata: [1][2]
6. ^ Meyer, Egbert (1998-08-27). "Microsoft: Vorgetaeuschter Bug legte
DR-DOS lahm". Heise Online (in German). Verlag Heinz Heise.
Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-14. [3]
7. ^ "Aaron R. Reynolds". Seattle Times. Obituary. 2008-08-04.
Archived from the original on 2016-03-04 - via Legacy.
8. ^ Dellert, Brian (1998-10-21). "Microsoft Plays Hardball". Eat the
State!. 3 (7). Archived from the original on 2008-04-20. Retrieved
2008-08-21.
9. ^ Pournelle, Jerry (2000-04-01). "The Microsoft Monopoly Debates".
Archived from the original on 2008-08-29. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
10. ^ "DR DOS 6.0 does Windows 3.1". Computerworld. News Shorts.
1992-04-20. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2019-07-22.
Retrieved 2019-07-22.
11. ^ Paul, Matthias R. (2000-09-18). "25 years of DR DOS history -
Digital Research DOS history". FreeDOS.org. Archived from the
original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2013-10-05. "See footnote #19
(BDOS 1067h "DR DOS 6.0 Windows 3.1 update, April 1992"; 1992-03,
1992-04-07: "This public DR DOS 6.0 update only includes patches
addressing full Windows 3.1 compatibility. There should have been a
full "business update" for registered users, shipping a little bit
later."), #27 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 Panther/Smirnoff BETA 3",
1993-09: "This issue does not have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD
code."), #29 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 German release"; 1994-02-22:
"This issue is known to have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD code.
This should also apply to the earlier English issue.")"
12. ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Susman, Stephen Daily; Eskridge III, Charles R.;
Southwick, James T.; Susman, Harry P.; Folse III, Parker C.;
Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matthew R.; McCune, Philip S.; Engel,
Lynn M.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E. (April 1999). "In the
United States District Court - District of Utah, Central Division -
Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Consolidated statement of
facts in support of its responses to motions for summary judgement
by Microsoft Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B" (Court document).
Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved
2018-08-05.
13. ^ Lea, Graham (1999-11-05). "How MS played the incompatibility card
against DR-DOS - Real bear-traps, and spurious errors". The
Register. Archived from the original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved
2013-09-26.
14. ^ Bridis, Ted (1998-08-28). "Windows Warning Resurfaces in Suit".
Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2016-11-25.
Retrieved 2016-11-25.
15. ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Goodin, Dan (1999-04-28). "Microsoft emails focus on
DR-DOS threat". CNET News. Archived from the original on
2016-03-10. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
16. ^ Allchin, James Edward (1993-09-18). "Customers and Novell" (PDF)
(Court document). pp. 72-73. MS 0186262-0186263; Comes v. Microsoft
Exhibit 1793; Allchin Deposition Exhibit 14. Archived (PDF) from
the original on 2018-08-03. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
17. ^ Susman, Stephen Daily; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Susman, Harry
P.; Southwick, James T.; Folse III, Parker C.; Borchers, Timothy
K.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matthew R.; Engel, Lynn M.; McCune,
Philip S.; Locker, Lawrence C.; Wheeler, Max D.; Hill, Stephen J.;
Tibbitts, Ryan E. (May 1999). "In the United States District Court
- District of Utah, Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft
Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B - Caldera, Inc.'s Memorandum in
opposition to defendant's motion for partial Summary Judgment on
plaintiff's "Technological Tying" claim" (Court document). Caldera,
Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved
2018-08-05.
18. ^ Ball, Lyle (1999-04-28). "Caldera submits evidence to counter
Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment" (Press release).
Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved
2018-08-05.
19. ^ Wheeler, Max D.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E.; Susman,
Stephen Daily; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Paterson, Thomas W.; Dow,
Stuart J.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Folse III, Parker C.; Borchers,
Timothy K. "In the United States District Court - District of Utah,
Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Case
No. 2:96CV 0645B - First amended complaint and jury demand". Tech
Law Journal (Court document). Archived from the original on
2016-11-25.
20. ^ Lea, Graham (2000-01-13). "Caldera vs Microsoft - the
settlement". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2008-10-05.
Retrieved 2008-08-21.
21. ^ ^a ^b Burt, Thomas W.; Sparks, Bryan Wayne (2000-01-07).
"Settlement agreement - Microsoft Corporation and Caldera, Inc.
reach agreement to settle antitrust lawsuit" (PDF) (Faxed court
document). Case 1:05-cv-01087-JFM, Document 104-8, Filed
2009-11-13; NOV00107061-NOV00107071; LT2288-LT2298;
Lan12S311263739.1; Exhibit A. Archived (PDF) from the original on
2017-07-04. Retrieved 2018-08-03. "[...] Microsoft will pay to
Caldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions
provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million
dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or
potential claims covered by this agreement [...]" (NB. This
document of the Caldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the
Novell v. Microsoft and Comes v. Microsoft cases.)
22. ^ ^a ^b Wallis, Richard J.; Aeschbacher, Steven J.; Bettilyon, Mark
M.; Webb, Jr., G. Stewar; Tulchin, David B.; Holley, Steven L.
(2009-11-13). "Microsoft's memorandum in opposition to Novell's
renewed motion for summary judgement on Microsoft's affirmative
defenses and in support of Microsoft's cross-motion for summary
judgement" (PDF) (Court document). United States District Court,
District of Maryland. p. 16. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation,
Civil Action No. JFM-05-1087. Archived (PDF) from the original on
2019-05-24. Retrieved 2018-08-03. "[...] Microsoft paid $280
million to Caldera to settle the case, and $35.5 million of the
settlement proceeds were provided by Caldera to Novell as a
so-called "royalty." [...] Dissatisfied with that amount, Novell
filed suit in June 2000 against Caldera (succeeded by The Canopy
Group), alleging that Novell was entitled to even more. [...]
Novell ultimately prevailed, adding $17.7 million to its share of
the monies paid by Microsoft to Caldera, for a total of more than
$53 million [...]"
23. ^ Wilcox, Joe (2000-01-11). "Caldera settlement shows a new side of
Microsoft". cnet. Archived from the original on 2016-11-25.
Retrieved 2009-01-19.
24. ^ Jones, Pamela (2009-11-23). "Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case". Groklaw. Archived
from the original on 2013-08-21. Retrieved 2011-10-22. "[...]
exhibits attached to Microsoft's Memorandum of Law in support of
Microsoft's cross motion for summary judgment in the Novell v.
Microsoft antitrust litigation. We finally find out what Microsoft
paid Caldera to settle the DrDOS litigation back in 2000: $280
million. We even get to read the settlement agreement. It's
attached as an exhibit. [...] The settlement terms were sealed for
all these years, but [...] now that mystery is solved. [...] We
also find out what Caldera/Canopy then paid Novell from that $280
million: $35.5 million at first, and then after Novell successfully
sued Canopy in 2004, Caldera's successor-in-interest on this
matter, an additional $17.7 million, according to page 16 of the
Memorandum. Microsoft claims that Novell is not the real party in
interest in this antitrust case, and so it can't sue Microsoft for
the claims it has lodged against it, because, Microsoft says,
Novell sold its antitrust claims to Caldera when it sold it DrDOS.
So the exhibits are trying to demonstrate that Novell got paid in
full, so to speak, via that earlier litigation. As a result, we get
to read a number of documents from the Novell v. Canopy litigation.
Novell responds it retained its antitrust claims in the
applications market. [...]"
25. ^ Gomes, Lee (2000-01-11). "Microsoft Will Pay $275 Million To
Settle Lawsuit From Caldera". The Wall Street Journal. Archived
from the original on 2016-12-31. Retrieved 2019-11-24. "Microsoft
Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an
antitrust lawsuit by Caldera Inc., heading off a trial that was
likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. [...] Microsoft
and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought
the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement.
Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a
share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31
[...] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding [...]"
Further reading[edit]
*
Osterman, Larry (2004-08-12). "AARDvarks in your code". Archived from
the original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
Osterman, Larry (2004-08-13). "So why didn't the Windows guys just
remove the AARD code from the system?". Archived from the original on
2016-11-25. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
Chappell, Geoff (1999-05-08). "The AARD Code". Archived from the
original on 2010-01-13. (Details and initial discovery)
Wilke, John R. (1998). "Old e-mail dogs Microsoft in fighting
antitrust suits". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Archived from the original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
(Caldera v. Microsoft details)
Dr John (1999). "Survey Says: "MS OK", but Dr. John is not
convinced". KickAss Gear. Archived from the original on 2016-11-25.
Retrieved 2016-11-25. (Site with email excerpts from Microsoft and an
example of tripping the AARD code (XMS error))
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AARD_code&oldid=1112595804"
Categories:
* Windows components
* Microsoft criticisms and controversies
Hidden categories:
* CS1 German-language sources (de)
* Use dmy dates from April 2019
Navigation menu
Personal tools
* Not logged in
* Talk
* Contributions
* Create account
* Log in
Namespaces
* Article
* Talk
[ ] English
Views
* Read
* Edit
* View history
[ ] More
____________________ Search Go
Navigation
* Main page
* Contents
* Current events
* Random article
* About Wikipedia
* Contact us
* Donate
Contribute
* Help
* Learn to edit
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Upload file
Tools
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Permanent link
* Page information
* Cite this page
* Wikidata item
Print/export
* Download as PDF
* Printable version
Languages
Add links
* This page was last edited on 27 September 2022, at 02:44 (UTC).
* Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you
agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia(R) is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers
* Contact Wikipedia
* Mobile view
* Developers
* Statistics
* Cookie statement
* Wikimedia Foundation
* Powered by MediaWiki
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------