Feeds

Microsoft paid Apple $150m to settle QuickTime suit

DoJ lawyer uncovers price of settling embarrassing copyright infringement dispute

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

David Boies, attorney for the DoJ, noted that John Warden, for Microsoft, had omitted to quote part of a handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million. This is very interesting news indeed, because it closes another chapter that has a hitherto secret ending in the saga of Microsoft's murky business practices. It's an interesting and little-known story. The confirmation of the payment appears to be the first hard news that Microsoft had been forced to back down in Apple's case against Microsoft and other defendants (including Intel) in the San Jose District Court in 1994. Microsoft and Intel had been shocked to find that Apple's QuickTime product made digital video on Windows seem like continuous motion, and was far in advance of anything that either of them had, even in a planning stage. The speed was achieved by bypassing Windows' Graphics Display Interface and enabling the application to write directly to the video card. The result was a significant improvement over the choppy, 'slide-show' quality of Microsoft's own efforts. Apple's intention was to establish the driver as a standard for multimedia video imaging, so that Mac developers could sell their applications on the Windows and Mac platforms. Microsoft requested a free licence from Apple for QuickTime for Windows in June 1993, and was refused. In July 1993, the San Francisco Canyon Company entered into an agreement with Intel to deliver a program (codenamed Mario) that would enable Intel to accelerate Video for Windows' processing of video images. However, although Intel certainly knew that Canyon had developed key parts of the code for Apple, it did not specify that this must be undertaken in a clean room, which is a damning condemnation in view of Intel's experience of such matters following its own litigation with AMD. A month later, Canyon delivered the program to Intel containing code that was an exact copy of the code that it had previously delivered to Apple. Intel gave this code to Microsoft as part of a joint development program called Display Control Interface. Canyon admitted that it had copied to Intel code developed for and assigned to Apple. In September 1994, Apple's software was distributed by Microsoft in its developer kits, and in Microsoft's Video for Windows version 1.1d. Apple noticed a suspicious improvement in the performance of Microsoft's video driver. Sure enough: Apple's code was being used. Apple produced a videotape with a clip of Video for Windows, with and without the Apple code. The difference was striking: without the Apple code, the clip was staggered and jerky, whereas the version with Apple's code was smooth and had clear frame transitions. Apple was desperately waiting for Microsoft to send it a beta copy of Windows 95, and found itself in a similar position to Netscape in this respect. Following a bizarre intervention that took the form of a late-night telephone call to Microsoft head-lawyer Bill Neukom by Ann Bingaman, the head of the DoJ's antitrust division, in response to a request from Edward Stead, then Apple's general counsel, this was at last supplied. The next day, Apple added Microsoft to the list of defendants in the San Jose court case. The sub-text of the dispute also began to emerge: "Apple is also claiming that Microsoft has been using the code in question to mess up [Apple's] attempts to make QuickTime a standard." Industry observers saw a clear desire by Microsoft to get developers to develop only for Windows. Now who, you may ask, was at the centre of various false claims, false counter-claims, and cover-ups about what had really been happening? Step forward Brad Silverberg, the absent Microsoft VP, who would have a tale to tell to Judge Jackson's court if only Microsoft would invite him along to the party. ® Complete Register trial coverage Click for more stories Click for story index

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

More from The Register

next story
Facebook pays INFINITELY MORE UK corp tax than in 2012
Thanks for the £3k, Zuck. Doh! you're IN CREDIT. Guess not
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
Spaffing copyrighted stuff over the web? No search ranking for you
Don't bother telling people if you lose their data, say Euro bods
You read that right – with the proviso that it's encrypted
Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
The, er, Beats go on after noise-cancelling spat
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.