Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
aix11.hrz.uni-oldenburg.de!nordwest.pop.de!news.hamburg.pop.de!easix!
uunet!in1.uu.net!psinntp!gatekeeper.nsc.com!voder!apple.com!
mac701.kip.apple.com!user
From: ma...@applelink.apple.com (Michael Mace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Subject: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:15:45 -0800
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 311
Message-ID: <mace1-210295181545@mac701.kip.apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac701.kip.apple.com
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.sys.mac.advocacy:42906 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:
57257 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia:
2355 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:59348
An open letter from Apple
In the past few days, Intel and Microsoft said some remarkable things
regarding the QuickTime lawsuit. I have better things to do than argue
with them, but history shows that if you don't respond in public, people
will assume you have nothing to say. And we do have several important
things to say.
If you don't like this sort of wrangling between companies, my apologies,
and by all means please move on to the next topic.
===========================
Intel's comments
I'll start with some notes on Intel's comments, and then discuss Microsoft.
Here's a sampling of Intel's statements to the press, on two topics:
--How much code was pirated, and how easily could it be replaced?
San Jose Mercury-News: Howard High, a spokesman for Intel, said the code
or software instruction in question was obtained from Canyon by Intel, but
he characterizes it as "minor amount of code that we could reverse-engineer
in a couple of weeks if necessary."
Boston Globe: At Intel, Spokesman John Thompson said: "As far as we're
concerned, frankly, it's not enough lines of code to argue about, and we'll
re-write it. We'll go re-engineer the code. It's a few weeks worth of
work."
Wall Street Journal: An Intel spokesman said the disputed code is a small
portion of Video for Windows that it will be easy to replace it with
original code. "It's like three weeks of work," he said. "It's not worth
arguing over in court."
Newsbytes: "There is certainly a lot of speculation here in the valley as
to why such a big hubbub is made over something that is a relatively small,
minor piece of code," said Intel's Howard High.
Comments:
-Apple notified Intel about the pirated code several months ago. Since
Intel could have replaced that code within a couple of weeks, we have to
wonder why they didn�t do so.
-Several thousand lines of QuickTime code were pirated. I'll let the
reader decide how significant that is. We think it's important because the
code in question greatly improved the performance of Video for Windows.
-By repeating over and over that only an insignificant amount of code was
involved, Intel seems to be implying that pirating a small amount of code
is not a big deal. I presume Intel competitors like AMD and Cyrix are
taking notes here.
--Intel wanted to meet with Apple
Wall Street Journal: An Intel spokesman said the company was surprised by
the suit, since it had been trying to discuss the matter with Apple.
Seattle Post: An Intel spokesman said the company was surprised but not
concerned by its inclusion in the lawsuit... "We've been trying to set up a
meeting with (Apple) to see what their concerns are."
Wash Post: Howard High, a spokesman for Intel, said the suit caught the
company by surprise. "We've been trying to talk with Apple to understand
what their issues are and try to resolve them."
Comments:
-Apple had actually been in on and off discussions with Intel and Microsoft
for two months, including a number of in-person meetings. The talks were
not making progress. We've released a chronology of those conversations;
speak up if you want to see it.
===========================
Microsoft's comments
Microsoft issued a press release late last week, and followed it up this
week with several postings apparently written by Rick Segal, who identified
himself as Manager of Developer Relations at Microsoft.
--Here are excerpts from the Microsoft press release:
>MICROSOFT RESPONDS TO APPLE LAWSUIT
> Code Developed by Canyon Not in Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups
> 3.11 or Windows 95
> REDMOND, Wash., Feb. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Responding to the Apple
>Computer lawsuit filed yesterday, Microsoft Corporation said today that
>the code it licensed from Intel Corporation is not used in Windows(R)
>3.1, Windows(R) for Workgroups 3.11 or Microsoft's yet-to-be-released
>operating system, Windows(R) 95.
Interesting that Microsoft doesn't mention Windows NT, and doesn't clarify
whether the code will eventually be in Windows 95 when it's finished.
According to Microsoft's own public statements, it has been Microsoft's
intention to make Video for Windows part of both Windows NT and Windows 95.
The following quote is from a recently published book entitled
"Introducing Microsoft Windows 95--The Next Generation of Microsoft
Windows". The author is listed as Brent Etherington and the Microsoft
Windows 95 team. The foreword for the book is written by Brad Silverberg
(Senior Vice President, Personal Systems Division, Microsoft). The book
was published by Microsoft Press.
Page 252: "In the past, Video for Windows was distributed separately
(principally as a Software Developers Kit), but with the release of Windows
95, Video for Windows is now built in to every copy of Microsoft Windows,
including Windows NT. The widespread ability to play digital video has the
following implications....
� The barriers to entry for would-be multimedia title and tool
developers are further lowered because the issues of licensing and
installing Microsoft Video for Windows disappear."
>"The licensed code is low level driver code. It is not a key part of
>Video for Windows technology," said Brad Silverberg, Sr. Vice President
>of Microsoft's Personal Systems Division.
To quote again from "Introducing Microsoft Windows 95:"
Page 261: "In the summer of 1994, Microsoft released the new DCI display
driver development kit. The DCI technology was developed in partnership
with Intel and other makers of advanced video display cards.
"DCI is a device driver level interface that allows Windows to take
advantage of the following hardware features when they are built into
advanced display adapters [long feature list deleted].... Most of these
hardware features relate to fast, efficient decompression and playback of
digital video."
Sounds pretty important to me.
>"For example, major
>performance improvements in Video for Windows were introduced in
>version 1.1c, which did not use or contain the licensed code. These
>performance improvements were carried forward into version 1.1d."
We contend that the Apple code increased the performance of VFW, not that
this was the only performance improvement Microsoft ever made. We're
confident that this will be clear when we get to court.
>Since the filing of the suit against Canyon, Microsoft has repeatedly
>asked Apple for relevant facts in order to resolve this issue. Apple
>did not give Microsoft information about what specific code allegedly
>infringes Apple's rights, nor did Apple provide evidence to demonstrate
>its ownership or Microsoft's infringement.
Intel and Microsoft had access to the same information. We think we were
pretty clear and gave sufficient detail. Intel understood us well enough
to assess the code's importance and determine that it could be
reverse-engineered in two to three weeks. That requires pretty specific
knowledge.
We showed Microsoft one of the code files that had been pirated, to prove
that our code was in VFW. We offered to share the rest of the source code
if, based on the proof that we had already given, Microsoft would promise
to remove our code. Microsoft refused. What would you do in this
situation? Would you give Microsoft all of your source code when you were
facing that sort of stonewalling?
> "We are disappointed that Apple chose to go to court rather than
>provide Microsoft the information it sought," said William H. Neukom,
>Microsoft's Sr. Vice President for Law & Corporate Affairs.
Apple chose to go to court because we felt Intel and Microsoft were not
negotiating in good faith. You can see why.
--Now, here's the first note from Mr. Segal:
>Date: 2/17/95 6:00 AM
>From: RickSegal....
>This is a copy of the letter that has gone out to our developers....
>
>Dear Developer:
>
>You may have been confronted in recent days with incomplete information
>from Apple Computer Inc. concerning Microsofts Video for Windows (VFW)
>Software Developer Kit. I want you to know that Microsoft stands behind
>its products and the developers that use our SDKs to produce their own
>great products. Because of Apples aggressive PR campaign on this
>subject, it becomes necessary for us to clarify our position.
>
>Microsoft has only just received information to enable us to begin to
>evaluate Apples case against The San Francisco Canyon Company, Intel
>and Microsoft. Microsoft today told the court, "In light of Canyons
>1993 assignment to Intel, there are serious questions regarding whether
>Apple in fact owns the code on which its claim is based." This and
>other fundamental facts are in question in the case.
So Microsoft denies that we own the code in question -- in spite of the
sworn statement in which the Canyon programmer who wrote the code for Apple
admitted that he gave that same code to Intel. This is why we had to sue.
>if Apple files a lawsuit against you or any other developer for the
>distribution of VFW 1.1d, Microsoft will defend you.
Apple has no desire or plans to sue any developers. That's the whole
reason for offering the amnesty program. Microsoft's brave offer is likely
to raise more fears than it soothes, and we have to wonder if that was the
intent.
--Here's a second posting by Mr. Segal:
>Developers do not "need only" sign an agreement. What you are being told
>by Apple's marketing/pr machine is not what they are telling developers.
>Behind the scenes that switching is the only safe/sure way to avoid apple
>legal action.
A serious charge. Mr. Segal accuses Apple of lying, but doesn't give any
documentation. If he would care to put on the record any of these alleged
conversations, I'd like to see them. Better yet, perhaps developers could
post some of Microsoft's conversations with them over the years. The
readers could then decide which company is coercive and deceptive.
The question is not whether we're trying to get VFW developers to use
QuickTime. They're already using part of it, and of course we'd like them
to use the whole thing. We've been very up-front about that. But that
isn't why we sued. We went to court to protect our rights.
For the record, the conditions of the amnesty agreement are exactly as we
laid them out in the letter to developers. Nothing is hidden. It's not in
Apple's interest to deceive or mistreat developers, which is why we went to
the trouble of creating the amnesty program in the first place.
If anyone is confused about the terms of the amnesty program, they�re
welcome to post their questions here, and we�ll answer them in public.
>This is what this boils down to:
>
>Your neighbor comes up and says your house is on my land, tear it down.
>You ask your neighbor for the facts, like where he thinks the property
>line is. All your neighbor does is say "well, you know I'm right, tear it
>down." The natural response is try and get some facts.
Wrong analogy. We never in this case tried to get Windows torn down.
Here's a more accurate analogy: You catch someone selling furniture that
was taken from your house. You ask them to stop. They refuse. They send
you hostile letters. They use delaying tactics. They say the furniture
isn't very large, so why are you upset anyway? After two months you get
sick of it and sue. The next day they act surprised and claim you have
refused to talk with them.
>Facts are now coming out who really wrote it, when, and is this low level
>stuff even a problem in the first place given it is specific to two chip
>sets.
Now Microsoft adopts the Intel argument that this isn't an important issue
because the pirated code wasn't significant. We think it was significant.
Besides, piracy is piracy.
>All Microsoft wanted was to sit down with Apple and work it out.
>Failing that, we moved to protect our development community while
>David Nagel sends out his marketing troops to scare the pants off
>developers.
>
>David has my phone number as does Duncan and others at Apple. We would
>love to understand the issues and work something out. Apple doesn't want
>to do that. Fine, we will defend out positions.
There was plenty of detailed discussion. Besides, Microsoft and Apple
began more than a month ago to negotiate this primarily through their
lawyers. We have this on paper. So the whole "Dave Nagel refused to call
me" routine is a sham because that wasn�t the main channel of
communications.
--Excerpts from some additional postings by Mr. Segal:
>We are offering a complete legal blanket over this issue to developers so
>they can tell David Nagel and his band of marketing troopers to stuff it as
>they continue this, behind the scenes, attempt to strong arm developers
>into using QT....
>
>Apple is lying about attempting to cooperate. They were asked tons of
>time for information. They simply would not work with us and they know
>it. At the CEO level, they were asked. We offered to cooperate. Spindler
>was telling us, oh sure, let's work it out, while his FUD machine was
>calling down our developers and using strong arm tactics for the sole
>purpose of getting people to switch to QT....
>
>We will not, however, stand around and watch Nagel and his band of
>marketing drones use smear tactics, lie about facts, and threaten people
>with some bogus program that is full of holes.
I�ve seen the correspondence that went between Apple and Microsoft. I�m
confident that when these issues are fully aired in court, it will be clear
that Apple made a good faith effort to negotiate.
On a side topic, I'm relieved to say that I don't work for Dave Nagel (VP
of AppleSoft, Apple's OS division), so I guess I'm not a drone FUD machine
marketing trooper who produces bogus lying smear programs that are full of
holes. ;-)
I do think it's very unfortunate that Microsoft's representative has chosen
to personalize this thing. From our perspective, this is about legal
rights, not personalities, and insults don't benefit the industry.
Michael Mace
Director, Mac Platform Marketing
Apple Computer, Inc.
Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!gmdtub!cs.tu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!
news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!kaleka.seanet.com!interramp.com!
rsegal
From: rse...@interramp.com (Rick Segal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Subject: Re: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
Message-ID: <rsegal.11.00089526@interramp.com>
Date: 23 Feb 95 07:34:54 GMT
References: <mace1-210295181545@mac701.kip.apple.com>
Organization: OwnTime Inc.
Lines: 359
NNTP-Posting-Host: rsegal.seanet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.sys.mac.advocacy:43313 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:
58111 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia:
2424 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:59699
Michael, a few comments:
>In the past few days, Intel and Microsoft said some remarkable things
>regarding the QuickTime lawsuit. I have better things to do than argue
>with them, but history shows that if you don't respond in public, people
>will assume you have nothing to say. And we do have several important
>things to say.
No Kidding. Stop calling down developers, claiming Microsoft knew about this,
calling the company a bunch of pirates, and maybe we both can get some work
done.
>If you don't like this sort of wrangling between companies, my apologies,
>and by all means please move on to the next topic.
Well, I would rather have this out in the open vs. getting phone calls from
developers that have been on the receiving end of your phone calls.
[Munch]
>Comments:
>-Apple notified Intel about the pirated code several months ago. Since
>Intel could have replaced that code within a couple of weeks, we have to
>wonder why they didnUt do so.
What? You mean, finally, somebody from Apple gets the events correct. Apple
calls Intel, Intel says let's talk. Microsoft says what's going on. *Apple* is
too busy working on a PR exercise and talking with Intel to talk to us. Plus,
developers from all companies are talking about driver code that started out
as a spec sheet from two chip makers. The fact is that in your previous
postings, you claim you talked to both of us. Wrong and thanks for correcting
it here.
>-Several thousand lines of QuickTime code were pirated. I'll let the
>reader decide how significant that is. We think it's important because the
>code in question greatly improved the performance of Video for Windows.
There you go again. ripping off code is a bad thing, nobody disagrees. Our
claim, Michael, is that we didn't rip anybody off *and* we keep asking you to
sit down and walk through the code creation process given that this is
confined to a couple of chip sets. We have questions about "ownership" only
in the sense of how the code was built, when, given the other work Canyon did
for Intel, before you, etc. Confused. You make it out like Microsoft is
stonewalling, wrong, we are asking for cooperation in understanding the big
issue here.
>-Apple had actually been in on and off discussions with Intel and Microsoft
>for two months, including a number of in-person meetings. The talks were
>not making progress. We've released a chronology of those conversations;
>speak up if you want to see it.
Riiiiggght.. Tell the whole story. You had in person meetings with a team of
lawyers who would not let your people answering any questions. Yes, you can
claim a chronology of events. No, you are mistaken as to intent and what
really went on.
>===========================
>Microsoft's comments
>Microsoft issued a press release late last week, and followed it up this
>week with several postings apparently written by Rick Segal, who identified
>himself as Manager of Developer Relations at Microsoft.
>
That's me, your humble servant.
>Interesting that Microsoft doesn't mention Windows NT, and doesn't clarify
>whether the code will eventually be in Windows 95 when it's finished.
>According to Microsoft's own public statements, it has been Microsoft's
>intention to make Video for Windows part of both Windows NT and Windows 95.
> The following quote is from a recently published book entitled
>"Introducing Microsoft Windows 95--The Next Generation of Microsoft
>Windows". The author is listed as Brent Etherington and the Microsoft
>Windows 95 team. The foreword for the book is written by Brad Silverberg
>(Senior Vice President, Personal Systems Division, Microsoft). The book
>was published by Microsoft Press.
>Page 252: "In the past, Video for Windows was distributed separately
>(principally as a Software Developers Kit), but with the release of Windows
>95, Video for Windows is now built in to every copy of Microsoft Windows,
>including Windows NT. The widespread ability to play digital video has the
>following implications....
> % The barriers to entry for would-be multimedia title and tool
> developers are further lowered because the issues of licensing and
> installing Microsoft Video for Windows disappear."
>
What is the point here? The video services routines go in the box and
developers don't have to ship them. We don't mention NT because it is a
completely different system. This attempt at FUD surrounding the shipments
of our OS are cute but pointless. We've told you (and others) Win95 and WinNT
use new technology and don't use the "code in question." Since you have a beta
of Win95 and I am happy to send you a beta of WinNT 3.51, look for yourself.
This is a marketing FUD bomb on your part to scare people into thinking the OS
will get delayed or recalled. Wrong..
>>"The licensed code is low level driver code. It is not a key part of
>>Video for Windows technology," said Brad Silverberg, Sr. Vice President
>>of Microsoft's Personal Systems Division.
>To quote again from "Introducing Microsoft Windows 95:"
>Page 261: "In the summer of 1994, Microsoft released the new DCI display
>driver development kit. The DCI technology was developed in partnership
>with Intel and other makers of advanced video display cards.
>
>"DCI is a device driver level interface that allows Windows to take
>advantage of the following hardware features when they are built into
>advanced display adapters [long feature list deleted].... Most of these
>hardware features relate to fast, efficient decompression and playback of
>digital video."
>Sounds pretty important to me.
Ooopseee, missing the point, there Michael. We have said a number of times DCI
of Win95 is different and doesn't use "the code in Question." More FUD on your
part.
>>"For example, major
>>performance improvements in Video for Windows were introduced in
>>version 1.1c, which did not use or contain the licensed code. These
>>performance improvements were carried forward into version 1.1d."
>We contend that the Apple code increased the performance of VFW, not that
>this was the only performance improvement Microsoft ever made. We're
>confident that this will be clear when we get to court.
Any chance we could confine this stuff to the technical facts. The technical
facts are that this code is a point in time improvement related to two chip
sets. If you grab an ATI card or many many others and run that test you have
in video you will see no, I repeat, NO real improvements from 1.1a to 1.1d.
That's because, as we have said a zillion times, this is improvements related
to chips supported in VFW and not overall VFW improvement. So, if you are
going to claim that 1.1d is some giant leap forward, at least get the facts
straight about what that leap is.
>We showed Microsoft one of the code files that had been pirated, to prove
>that our code was in VFW. We offered to share the rest of the source code
>if, based on the proof that we had already given, Microsoft would promise
>to remove our code. Microsoft refused. What would you do in this
>situation? Would you give Microsoft all of your source code when you were
>facing that sort of stonewalling?
Again, you are not telling the whole story. You can claim "we refused" but you
are not telling why. I'll give you a chance to correct this one on your own.
We didn't ask for all the source code and that's not the issue anyway. We
had/have a list of questions and a list of issues we wanted to understand,
which had nothing to do with your source code.
>> "We are disappointed that Apple chose to go to court rather than
>>provide Microsoft the information it sought," said William H. Neukom,
>>Microsoft's Sr. Vice President for Law & Corporate Affairs.
>Apple chose to go to court because we felt Intel and Microsoft were not
>negotiating in good faith. You can see why.
Awww, gee, Michael, define good faith. We (Microsoft) asked for a bunch of
information and we didn't get any answers. You guys are telling people that
Win95 might be delayed, a massive recall is going to happen, ooooh, jump on
quicktime, blah blah; all the while stonewalling us in meetings.
>--Now, here's the first note from Mr. Segal:
>>Microsoft has only just received information to enable us to begin to
>>evaluate Apples case against The San Francisco Canyon Company, Intel
>>and Microsoft. Microsoft today told the court, "In light of Canyons
>>1993 assignment to Intel, there are serious questions regarding whether
>>Apple in fact owns the code on which its claim is based." This and
>>other fundamental facts are in question in the case.
>So Microsoft denies that we own the code in question -- in spite of the
>sworn statement in which the Canyon programmer who wrote the code for Apple
>admitted that he gave that same code to Intel. This is why we had to sue.
Does is say that Michael? No. It says, we have questions over this and before
we do anything we think we have a right to some answers. If Apple wants to
suck up the courts time, okay, I guess we will get some answers there.
>>if Apple files a lawsuit against you or any other developer for the
>>distribution of VFW 1.1d, Microsoft will defend you.
>Apple has no desire or plans to sue any developers. That's the whole
>reason for offering the amnesty program. Microsoft's brave offer is likely
>to raise more fears than it soothes, and we have to wonder if that was the
>intent.
Michael, why not come clean on this. If you were sincere, you
would do the following. You would post a licensing agreement that each
developer would have to put in the box of product they ship. *That* is what
you would do if it was this blanket amnesty program. People could just
download it. That's not what you are doing. You want all these people because
you want to capture all those names of developers by a cheap, underhanded
stunt. A full amnesty program would just be a simple posting from Apple that
says we are pissed off at Intel and Microsoft. Stick this in your box and you
are covered, thanks, end of story. You don't collect royalties any more so
what's the deal here? PR for Quicktime and a PR stunt to capture developers.
>--Here's a second posting by Mr. Segal:
>>Developers do not "need only" sign an agreement. What you are being told
>>by Apple's marketing/pr machine is not what they are telling developers.
>>Behind the scenes that switching is the only safe/sure way to avoid apple
>>legal action.
>A serious charge. Mr. Segal accuses Apple of lying, but doesn't give any
>documentation. If he would care to put on the record any of these alleged
>conversations, I'd like to see them. Better yet, perhaps developers could
>post some of Microsoft's conversations with them over the years. The
>readers could then decide which company is coercive and deceptive.
It is a serious charge and I stand by it. Over the years, nice shot, but
sticking to the facts at hand might be better. Tell you what Michael, anytime
you think you can stand the heartbreak, you call me and we can do a joint
independent study on developers and statisfaction with Apple vs. Microsoft.
Anytime, anywhere.
>The question is not whether we're trying to get VFW developers to use
>QuickTime. They're already using part of it, and of course we'd like them
>to use the whole thing. We've been very up-front about that. But that
>isn't why we sued. We went to court to protect our rights.
Wrong. They are using low level driver code that may or may not be yours. And,
try being straight. This low level, chip specific, driver code is not core to
people's use of QT or VFW and you know it. Again, I not making comments on
ownership here. I just would like everybody to understand what this code is.
>For the record, the conditions of the amnesty agreement are exactly as we
>laid them out in the letter to developers. Nothing is hidden. It's not in
>Apple's interest to deceive or mistreat developers, which is why we went to
>the trouble of creating the amnesty program in the first place.
Interesting. I've asked for full copies of this Amnestry program. This open
thing. I've not seen them. I have not been able to get Apple to fax them to
me. Can you? Nagel says it's open but not to our consumer group because they
should have known. Interesting. We licensed code from Intel in good faith.
>>This is what this boils down to:
>>
>>Your neighbor comes up and says your house is on my land, tear it down.
>>You ask your neighbor for the facts, like where he thinks the property
>>line is. All your neighbor does is say "well, you know I'm right, tear it
>>down." The natural response is try and get some facts.
>Wrong analogy. We never in this case tried to get Windows torn down.
>Here's a more accurate analogy: You catch someone selling furniture that
>was taken from your house. You ask them to stop. They refuse. They send
>you hostile letters. They use delaying tactics. They say the furniture
>isn't very large, so why are you upset anyway? After two months you get
>sick of it and sue. The next day they act surprised and claim you have
>refused to talk with them.
Right Anology. You are asking VfW to be torn down and asking us to blindly
recall products without even coming close to answering our questions on this
issue. We are back into this stealing thing again. Amazin how Apple likes to
call Microsoft theives when they know the exact facts in the case and the
exact licensing terms we got from Intel. More FUD.
>>Facts are now coming out who really wrote it, when, and is this low
level>>stuff even a problem in the first place given it is specific to two chip
>>sets.
>Now Microsoft adopts the Intel argument that this isn't an important issue
>because the pirated code wasn't significant. We think it was significant.
>Besides, piracy is piracy.
OOPS, threre you go again. We are not adopting any argument. We are saying
this is very low level stuff and we would like to understand all the facts
before we take any action.
>>All Microsoft wanted was to sit down with Apple and work it out.
>>Failing that, we moved to protect our development community while
>>David Nagel sends out his marketing troops to scare the pants off
>>developers.
>>
>>David has my phone number as does Duncan and others at Apple. We would
>>love to understand the issues and work something out. Apple doesn't want
>>to do that. Fine, we will defend out positions.
>There was plenty of detailed discussion. Besides, Microsoft and Apple
>began more than a month ago to negotiate this primarily through their
>lawyers. We have this on paper. So the whole "Dave Nagel refused to call
>me" routine is a sham because that wasnUt the main channel of
>communications.
Sham? Phooey. We offered to sit down and talk about this and you guys send a
pile of lawyers that give no answers to, we believe, reasonable questions.
There were no detailed discussion, that's false, there were laywers going back
and forth while your PR machine geared up. My point is that if you have a
sincere effort to fix the problem, you would have talked to the very public
people that you talk to every day on other issues. Main channels, lawyers,
FUD bombs, jezzz..
Tell you what, name a time and place. You/Nagel/Whomever and moi/VFW people
will meet and solve the problem for the community. No lawyers. No senior
execs. Just us working people. See, the problem with making a statement like
that is your PR machine will twist into "MS is desperate to solve the
problem." But I make it anyway. rse...@microsoft.com 24hrs... See, all I care
about is getting great applications written that use my technology and I am
hapy to compete with you on that basis alone. So, let's solve this problem and
move on.
>>We will not, however, stand around and watch Nagel and his band of
>>marketing drones use smear tactics, lie about facts, and threaten people
>>with some bogus program that is full of holes.
>IUve seen the correspondence that went between Apple and Microsoft. IUm
>confident that when these issues are fully aired in court, it will be clear
>that Apple made a good faith effort to negotiate.
>On a side topic, I'm relieved to say that I don't work for Dave Nagel (VP
>of AppleSoft, Apple's OS division), so I guess I'm not a drone FUD machine
>marketing trooper who produces bogus lying smear programs that are full of
>holes. ;-)
Why, Michael, Dave's a good guy, working for him would be a step up. 8-)
>I do think it's very unfortunate that Microsoft's representative has chosen
>to personalize this thing. From our perspective, this is about legal
>rights, not personalities, and insults don't benefit the industry.
Oh pulezzzh, pick a rule book, Michael. It is just a legal thing? Great,
send me a mail note that promise no Apple person will talk about this issue
, in public, until the lawyers get done. I'll to the same. When the dust
settles we can resume the contest.
On it being personal. Here this loud and clear: It is personal. I'm not going
to sit back and watch you guys try drive a truck through my development
community. Turn down the heat in those Calif Hot Tubs, you are not thinking
clearly if you believe I, personally, am going to sit around and let you have
all the fun, let you take all the shots, hee hee, no don't think so. The
developer relations group that I run is damn proud of the work we have done,
the technology we have offered, the "like water" Jumpstart CDs we give away,
etc. I am perfectly willing to take a zillion pieces of flame mail from .edu
people and others who want to rag on Microsoft. Price you pay. So save the
smug, "don't benefit the industry" stuff for another day. Anytime you want to
tone down the FUD, stop calling developers, offer a blanket FTP downloadable
license, and sit down with us (Not Intel, in this case, I work for Microsoft),
and work out something that "does benefit the industry", reach out and Email
me. I ready, anytime, anyplace.
Oh, and one other thing. At Intermedia it came to my attention that your
QuickTime Staff video tapes our Surround Video presentation including the Q&A
which followed. This was in clear violation of the tradeshow policy. But
since you did it anyway, could you help me out and get me a copy. Turns out,
we don't have a video tape of it. I'll pay for the tapes. 8-)
Rick Segal, Manager, Developer Relations
Microsoft
rse...@microsoft.com
>Michael Mace
>Director, Mac Platform Marketing
>Apple Computer, Inc.
Seee, Marketing... Told ya ;-0
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!delos.stgt.sub.org!delos.stgt.sub.org!news.maz.net!pipex!
howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!
godot.cc.duq.edu!ddsw1!panix!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!
charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!csulb.edu!library.ucla.edu!
nnrp.info.ucla.edu!e0097.asucla.ucla.edu!user
From: dku...@asucla.ucla.edu (David A. Kurtz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Subject: Re: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:47:48 -0800
Organization: ASUCLA SGCC
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <dkurtz-2302951047480001@e0097.asucla.ucla.edu>
References: <mace1-210295181545@mac701.kip.apple.com>
<rsegal.11.00089526@interramp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: e0097.asucla.ucla.edu
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.sys.mac.advocacy:42971 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:
57374 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia:
2370 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:59396
In article <rsegal.11...@interramp.com>, rse...@interramp.com (Rick
Segal) wrote:
[just some excerpts]
> What? You mean, finally, somebody from Apple gets the events correct. Apple
> Awww, gee, Michael, define good faith. We (Microsoft) asked for a bunch of
> information and we didn't get any answers. You guys are telling people that
> Win95 might be delayed, a massive recall is going to happen, ooooh, jump on
> quicktime, blah blah; all the while stonewalling us in meetings.
>
> On it being personal. Here this loud and clear: It is personal. I'm not
going
> to sit back and watch you guys try drive a truck through my development
> community. Turn down the heat in those Calif Hot Tubs, you are not thinking
> clearly if you believe I, personally, am going to sit around and let you have
> all the fun, let you take all the shots, hee hee, no don't think so. The
> developer relations group that I run is damn proud of the work we have done,
> the technology we have offered, the "like water" Jumpstart CDs we give away,
> etc. I am perfectly willing to take a zillion pieces of flame mail from .edu
> people and others who want to rag on Microsoft. Price you pay. So save the
> smug, "don't benefit the industry" stuff for another day. Anytime you
want to
> tone down the FUD, stop calling developers, offer a blanket FTP downloadable
> license, and sit down with us (Not Intel, in this case, I work for
Microsoft),
> and work out something that "does benefit the industry", reach out and Email
> me. I ready, anytime, anyplace.
>
> Oh, and one other thing. At Intermedia it came to my attention that your
> QuickTime Staff video tapes our Surround Video presentation including the Q&A
> which followed. This was in clear violation of the tradeshow policy. But
> since you did it anyway, could you help me out and get me a copy. Turns out,
> we don't have a video tape of it. I'll pay for the tapes. 8-)
>
> Rick Segal, Manager, Developer Relations
> Microsoft
> rse...@microsoft.com
>
> Seee, Marketing... Told ya ;-0
You gotta be kidding me! This guy works for Microsoft Developer
relations!? For one of the most powerful companies on the face of the
planet, I would think Microsoft would be able to hire someone a little
more... tactful. Small hint here, Rick. You are certainly not convincing
me and you're certainly not convincing many other people of Microsoft's
legal position. Regardless of whether or not what you say is true (and I
believe that you believe it's true), your delivery is akin to that of a
whiny three year old. Grow up and deal with the issue like a normal human
being, please. There's enough idiocy here (in c.s.mac.advocacy) without
'official' statements from Microsoft (or any company for that matter)
making it worse.
--
David A. Kurtz
dku...@asucla.ucla.edu
dku...@lightside.com
http://lightside.com/~dkurtz/public_html/index.html
Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!gmdtub!cs.tu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!
news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: rick...@aol.com (RickSegal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
Message-ID: <3ijuka$jl3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: 24 Feb 95 06:33:46 GMT
References: <dkurtz-2302951047480001@e0097.asucla.ucla.edu>
Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Reply-To: rick...@aol.com (RickSegal)
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 111
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
David A. Kurtz
dku...@asucla.ucla.edu
dku...@lightside.com
http://lightside.com/~dkurtz/public_html/index.html
Dave,
Reasonable points. I was being rather strong. This is a somewhat personal
issue on things like the beta. I have spent two years making sure that
Apple does, in fact, get treated fairly as a Developer. This issue of not
gettig betas, as an example, is simply false. But you are correct, I'll
tone it down. Here is, BTW, the letter that Bill sent to Apple that you
have probably read about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
February 23, 1995
Via facsimile
Michael Spindler
Office of the President & CEO
Apple Computer, Inc.
10431 North De Anza Blvd., MS 38A
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mike,
I am writing to make it clear how disappointed I am in the lack of candor
and honesty Apple has shown in dealing with Microsoft during the last
several months.
Before our meeting on January 13, I had been trying to meet with you for
over a year to discuss ways to strengthen our business relationship. I
had a meeting with your executive staff scheduled which you canceled with
less than a days notice. I was looking forward to the meeting. Microsoft
develops more software for the Macintosh than any other company. We came
out with more new Macintosh titles last year than any other year, or than
any other company. We have always made our commitment to the Macintosh
very clear. This commitment has continued despite the copyright lawsuit
which Apple brought against all Windows software and lost, and despite the
fact that Apple has treated Microsoft less favorably than other Mac
developers on dozens of occasions.
When we finally met you requested additional beta copies of Windows 95,
and you also asked about the Canyon matter. Apple had already received a
number of betas and wanted more. Microsoft had already treated Apple more
generously on beta copies than Apple treats Microsoft on Mac OS betas. I
did not think we needed to give you additional betas, but I was willing to
provide them to Apple as a courtesy. In return, I requested a simple
courtesy from you. I said if Apple would have business people meet with
us to discuss the Canyon issue and show us the basis for Apples claims,
and if you would at least talk with me before you sued Microsoft, I would
have those betas sent. You committed to this, confirming it in your fax
to me of January 16.
I made it clear we took the Canyon matter very seriously and were
disappointed Apple had been unwilling to give us any proof that it owned
the Canyon code. Subsequent to this there was no follow up on the
business meeting. You sent me a fax on January 31, asking where the betas
were. I expected a business discussion regarding Canyon to take place
first, so I called you on Monday, February 6, and asked you about those
discussions. Based on your assurance to follow up on the discussions, and
your repeat of the promise to talk to me before suing Microsoft, I
committed to release additional beta copies. On Tuesday Carl Stork of
Microsoft did talk to your business people, but they still refused to
provide any basis for your claims. Nevertheless, on Wednesday we sent
additional beta copies to Apple. On Thursday without talking to me you
sued Microsoft. Based on the video press release and other orchestrated
press activity, the suit had been in planning for some time. Apple
included information in its news releases that was never made available to
Microsoft. I talked to you on Thursday night making it clear how
misleading Apple was
being in its statements.
Apple, in its news conference and video releases, made claims about Video
For Windows version 1.1d speeding up on all machines. You knew from
discussions with Microsoft that this was simply wrong. Only the two
additional video cards which didnt have drivers before 1.1d show any
speed difference. Apple has attempted to use its allegations to force
ISVs to change their software to support QuickTime rather than Video for
Windows even if the ISVs feel that Video for Windows is a technically
superior product. Apple has come a long way from the original
evangelization days of the Macintosh to be using legal intimidation, in
the form of its amnesty program, to influence software developers.
I think it was inappropriate for you to promise to talk to me before
filing a lawsuit and then not follow through on that commitment. I think
it was improper for Ed Stead to tell news publications and state in his
February 13 letter to Judge Sporkin that the release of the betas were
requested by the Justice Department. It is simply not true to say that
the Department of Justice asked us to release betas or to suggest they
were the reason for that decision. I told you I would release the betas
based on your commitment to make sure there was a business discussion and
to talk to me before including Microsoft in a lawsuit.
Only yesterday did we see the February 13 letter from Mr. Stead to Judge
Sporkin. Mr. Stead failed to provide a copy of the letter to the DOJ or
Microsoft. In this letter Mr. Stead alleges that during our January 13
meeting we threatened to discontinue our Macintosh software if you
continued to develop OpenDoc. This is also not true. Our whole message
during the meeting was about our commitment to the Macintosh. We did not
suggest that Apple should drop OpenDoc or that we would discontinue our
Macintosh development. We did say that, as we presently understand
OpenDoc, it is not clear how we can support it in our applications. We
asked that Mr. Nagel meet with Mr. Heinen to see if OLE and OpenDoc can be
brought closer together so that all Macintosh ISVs who also develop for
the Windows platform will be able to support both OpenDoc and OLE. We
believe this would be in the best interest of the entire industry. We
feel that as presently defined OpenDoc and OLE will have very little
interoperability despite what users have been lead to expect.
I still feel that a constructive dialog between you and me would be
helpful to both of our companies and our mutual users. Microsoft is very
committed to its Macintosh customers. I think the Macintosh has a bright
future. I feel more straightforward communication from Apple to Microsoft
is called for.
Best regards,
Bill Gates
Chairman & CEO
Rick Segal, Microsoft
rse...@microsoft.com