I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I agree with everything you said here.
And if you read any other articles, it was very clear that there was code from Quicktime copied and pasted, line for line, into Video for Windows.
Do you even know anything about the details of this case, that is, other than what was written about it in Wikepedia?
Apple didn't originally sue Microsoft, they sued San Francisco Canyon. When they did, Microsoft attempted to contact Apple to discuss the matter, and Apple refused to meet with them. Microsoft then attempted to find out exactly what code it was that Apple was alleging been stolen, and Apple refused to tell them.
One of the most basic principles of civil law is that a plantiff has a legal responsibility to mitigate their damages, and Apple refused.
And that justifies the theft how? Digital video is a multi-billion dollar industry. Hard to justify increasing performance as insignificant in the early days.
First of all, Apple never even claimed that Microsoft stole their code. Microsoft licensed that code from Intel, and had no reason to even suspect that any part of Intel's code even belonged to Apple. That's for starters.
Second, this is the United States of America and in this country, innocence is assumed until proven guilty in a court of law, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. I'm sorry, but Apple never proved anyone stole their code. What they actually alleged is that Microsoft knew that the program they licensed from Intel contained some of Apple's code. They didn't even have any solid basis for that allegation either. It's just what they alleged.
You want to call it theft when Apple refused to even discuss the matter with Microsoft, much less even tell them exactly what code supposedly had been stolen? Ok, in that case, since when does that justify blackmail? Which is basically what Apple's little "Quicktime Amnesty Program" amounted to, in which Apple attempted to force developers to switch from Microsoft's video program, to Apple Quicktime, threatening anyone who didn't, with a lawsuit. Further attempting to intimidate them by starting out suing San Francisco Canyon.
Now most companies would know that if they attempted to sue, they would be slapped silly with counter suits, and after pulling a cheap stunt like that, those countersuits would stand a far better chance of prevailing against them in court, but so what? Any, and every, one who won against Apple would never be able to collect because by that time, Apple would be bankrupt and out of business. Their opponents wouldn't even be able to recover their legal fees. You can't get blood out of a stone. Again, Apple had nothing to lose.
It wasn't until after Microsoft announced that they would provide legal defense for any developer Apple sued for using Microsoft's Video program, that Apple decided to add Microsoft to their suit against San Francisco Canyon.
Apple never actually claimed that Microsoft was the one who stole their code, but rather alleged that Microsoft knew Apple's code was in there, but again, refused to give Microsoft any information about that code, not even which part of the code was theirs, not even to enable Microsoft to remove it.
In case you're still not seeing it, Apple didn't really want Microsoft to simply remove their code. That would have ruined everything!
Again, no one is arguing these issues.
Hi No One, I'm Janet.
Again, I'd agree with that completely (though I don't know what Apple's chances were in a potential Quicktime lawsuit.) You've been arguing points I've never made.
I would estimate Apple's chances of prevailed as roughly: A snowball's chance in hell. Why do you think the Supreme Court refused to hear Apple's previous suits?
And all of that aside, Microsoft would still have prevailed because they still had that cross platform royalty-free licensing agreement, that Apple had so nicely signed.
I called it a myth. The $150 million did not keep Apple afloat. That was my point. Along with the claim that it wasn't a miracle or benevolence that led to Microsoft making the investment. It was a settlement. I agree the antitrust issues were a major part of why Microsoft agreed to the settlement, in addition to the cross-licensing agreement the ended years of litigation and resolved the potential Quicktime lawsuit.
The only thing I consider a myth is calling that $150M a settlement. Although in my personal opinion, I feel it would be more accurate to call it a farce.
Of course Microsoft wasn't just being generous. They were covering their ass, but not from Apple's lawsuit. They could have squashed Apple like a bug.
