Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
Michael Mace
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.
Dave Stevens
ma...@applelink.apple.com (Michael Mace) writes:
> An open letter from Apple
>
> In the past few days, Intel and Microsoft said some emarkable things
> regarding the QuickTime lawsuit.
[snipping a very detailed response]
Aside from the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, would it make more
sense for Apple to license QT to Microsoft? Apple has been the leader
in developing technologies and graphic interfaces for years now.
Microsoft has had a virual stranglehold on the computer software market
in general. Apple's marketshare has no hope of even getting remotely
close to the Wintel market share, and Microsoft can't even come close
to Apple in innovative new ideas.
Microsoft, license QT so you have a decent video program, and not just
a dolled up Power Point. You had to license Opcode OMS to get a MIDI
standard that was suitable for pro use. Do the same for video.
I hope Court TV is there :-)
Rick Segal
>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
Illya Vaes
>> Aside from the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, would it make more
>> sense for Apple to license QT to Microsoft?
>deal with Apple for a license when QuickTime was first released.
>Apple it seems rebuffed them, their corporate
>culture was a little different in those days.
So, we can't license it for cheap. Let's steal it.
>> I hope Court TV is there :-)
>Gee do you think they have time to break away from the ever thrilling
>OJ/Ito show :-)
Court TV! The xxxtainment culture of the USA never ceases to 'amaze' me.
Never mind justice, never mind 'innocent until proven guilty', we need
entertainment, so slap their faces on TV!
What a great country this is.
--
Illya Vaes (iv...@ib.ns.nl) "Do...or do not, there is no trying" - Yoda
Dutch Rail Engineering, Signalling CAD "He meddled with things man was meant
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht to leave alone" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Tel +31.30.358586, Fax 357212 MS-Windows, the Dark Side of the GUI
Simon K Boocock
responds to Intel.. by Dave Ste...@halcyon.com
> ma...@applelink.apple.com (Michael Mace) writes:
>
> > An open letter from Apple
> >
> > In the past few days, Intel and Microsoft said some emarkable things
> > regarding the QuickTime lawsuit.
>
> [snipping a very detailed response]
>
> Aside from the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, would it make more
> sense for Apple to license QT to Microsoft?
deal with Apple for a license when QuickTime was first released.
Apple it seems rebuffed them, their corporate
culture was a little different in those days.
> Apple has been the leader
> in developing technologies and graphic interfaces for years now.
> Microsoft has had a virual stranglehold on the computer software market
> in general. Apple's marketshare has no hope of even getting remotely
> close to the Wintel market share, and Microsoft can't even come close
> to Apple in innovative new ideas.
>
> Microsoft, license QT so you have a decent video program, and not just
> a dolled up Power Point. You had to license Opcode OMS to get a MIDI
> standard that was suitable for pro use. Do the same for video.
>
> I hope Court TV is there :-)
Rick Segal
>R<
rse...@microsoft.com
Microsoft Q&A: Apple Video For Windows Lawsuit Tuesday, February 21, 1995
Q1: What is Microsoft's comment concerning the recent Apple lawsuit
regarding Video For Windows?
A: Microsoft has done nothing wrong. As a result, we are
disappointed that Apple has chosen to take this matter to court rather
than resolve it through constructive discussion. For over two
months, Microsoft has attempted to resolve this matter with Apple, but
Apple has remained intransigent.
Further, Microsoft would like to make it clear that we will defend our
products, protect our customers and insulate our developers from the impact
of Apple's legal actions. Microsoft has issued a letter to developers
outlining our commitment. In particular, the letter states if Apple sues
any developer over use and distribution of Microsoftr Video For Windowsr
1.1d Microsoft will defend any such lawsuit.
Q2: Apple has demanded developers join the QuickTime amnesty program
and stop using Video For Windows 1.1d. What is Microsoft doing about
this?
A: We are defending our developers and vigorously contesting Apple's
lawsuit. Apple appears to be using this lawsuit and the attendant PR
campaign to compel developers to switch from Video For Windows to Appler
QuickTime for Windows. We think developers should be free to base their
product decisions on superior technology and customer preference, not on
litigation tactics or implicit threats. Microsoft stands behind Video For
Windows. If Apple files a lawsuit against any developer for the
distribution of Video For Windows 1.1d, Microsoft will defend that
developer.
Q3: What should third party developers who use Video For Windows
1.1d do?
A: Developers should evaluate Apple's actions - including the amnesty
program - on the merits and in the proper context. That is, Apple has
asked developers to support QuickTime For Windows by implying that, if
developers don't, they will be sued. Microsoft's response is we stand by
our product, and we stand by our developers and customers.
Q4: Why did Apple file suit now?
A: You should ask Apple. The pattern of events suggests that Apple felt
they were better served by the publicity and confusion generated by a
lawsuit than by providing Microsoft the basic information necessary to
evaluate Apple's claims and work constructively to resolve any disputes. It
is unfortunate that Apple has chosen to communicate incomplete and
misleading information to gain the public spotlight.
Q5: Did you try to settle this matter with Apple?
A: Repeatedly. As soon as Apple sued Canyon, we suggested to Apple to
meet with us on this matter. Instead, Apple chose to steamroll a smaller,
relatively defenseless party (Canyon) and refuse, for over six weeks, to
meet. When we finally did meet, we made three reasonable requests of
Apple: tell us exactly what code you believe is being misused;
provide evidence of ownership of that code by Apple; and, if in fact
there is a problem, propose a reasonable remedy.
Apple refused to address our requests. They refused to identify what
Apple code was being infringed, much less reasonably demonstrate
ownership of any code. Yet they demanded that Microsoft cease all
distribution of any "infringing" code, and that the code be recalled from
both Microsoft and third party products. Without reasonably specific
information it was impossible for Microsoft to determine whether there
was a real problem, what action should be taken or how to even proceed
with Apple to come to any resolution. In the weeks that followed, Apple
continued to stall. In fact, while Microsoft executives continued to pursue
business discussions on the Monday and Tuesday prior to the Thursday filing
of the lawsuit, the Apple PR machine was finalizing a carefully orchestrated
publicity campaign. We were surprised that Apple chose to file suit without
giving the discussions a chance to succeed.
Q6: Exactly what code is involved?
A: This is what we would like to know. What we do know is Microsoft
licensed some low level driver code from Intel that Microsoft modified
and included in Video For Windows 1.1d. Intel apparently used Canyon
as a subcontractor to develop some portion of that code. Apple had
apparently also used Canyon as a contractor to develop portions of
QuickTime for Windows. Apple claims that some of the driver code which
Canyon developed for Intel had originally been developed for Apple.
The code that appears to be in question is low-level assembly code
which programs the registers of specific graphics chips. Generally this
code is derived from the reference manuals, data books, and sample code
which is provided by the graphics chip vendors. It is not clear at this
point as to the origin and the ownership of the code in question.
Q7: Where is the disputed code found?
A: The disputed code is contained in a file called DCISVGA.DRV. This
driver is called by the implementation of DCI ("Display Control Interface")
that is part of Video For Windows 1.1d.
Q8: What is DCI?
A: DCI is an open specification published by Microsoft and Intel to
guide hardware manufacturers in building display subsystems. DCI is
particularly focused upon the requirements of digital video. DCI
extends the benefits of Microsoft's Direct Video Access ("DVA") technology
that first appeared in Video For Windows 1.1 into a broader range of video
hardware. The primary difference between DCI and DVA is that the DCI
implementation in Video For Windows 1.1d supports some additional chipsets
and is an open specification which allows third parties to write their
own drivers to be supported.
Q9: Why did you continue to ship the disputed code after Apple sued
Canyon?
A: We licensed the code from Intel and therefore believed, and continue
to believe, that the code belongs to Intel, not Apple. To date, Apple
has not provided evidence that disproves this. It was also not at all
clear what code was at issue. As stated above, Apple refused to provide
any reasonable information on the matter. Further, not being a party to the
litigation with Canyon, Microsoft did not have access to the discovery
produced to Apple. Since we had licensed the code from a reputable and
sophisticated party, Intel, the appropriate course seemed to be to continue
with our business as usual and not react to unsubstantiated allegations and
threats.
Q10:Why did Apple's videotape show a performance difference between
Video For Windows 1.1a and Video For Windows 1.1d?
A: Video For Windows 1.1d added support for two graphics chips that were
not supported in prior releases. Apple's demonstration videotape was
carefully crafted to choose a graphics chip which was not supported in
Video For Windows 1.1a. Had Apple chosen to use one of the many graphics
chips already supported in earlier versions of Video For Windows, the
tape would have shown comparable performance between Video For Windows
1.1a and Video For Windows 1.1d. Apple's use of this videotape misleads
viewers into thinking that the performance difference is due to some change
in underlying technology, rather than addition of a driver which
supports the graphics chip running the video. On either QuickTime For
Windows or Video For Windows, running a video on an unsupported graphics
chip results in poor performance.
We have created a similar videotape demonstration which shows an .AVI
file playing on a 486/66 PC (similar to the configuration used by Apple in
its tape) under Windowsr for Workgroups 3.11 with an ATI Mach32 VLB video
card. The Microsoft videotape clearly demonstrates that there is little,
if any, performance difference between Video For Windows 1.1a and Video
For Windows 1.1d. This tape was shown to the court last Friday.
Q11:How are Video for Windows and DCI being distributed?
A: The code which Microsoft licensed from Intel is included in Video For
Windows 1.1d and the DCI 1.0 DDK ("Device Driver Kit"). Video For Windows
1.1d is a developer toolkit. Software developers would use this toolkit
to create products to capture, edit, and playback digital video. Graphics
hardware developers would use the DCI toolkit to create device drivers.
These toolkits are distributed through the same mechanisms that are used
for other Microsoft developer tools. This includes electronic sources such
as CompuServer and Microsoft's Internet FTP server, as well as on CD-ROMs
like the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) and the Jumpstart 2.0 CD. This
is the typical way in which Microsoft distributes such tools. The Video For
Windows 1.1d toolkit comes with a license that permits developers to
redistribute certain runtime files in object code form, including the
DCISVGA.DRV file mentioned above.
The code in question was not distributed with versions of Video for
Windows prior to version 1.1d.
Q12:Isn't QuickTime the only cross platform digital video standard?
A: No. Starting with Video for Windows 1.1, Microsoft has shipped a
converter for the Macintoshr to allow users and developers to use their
Video for Windows movies on the Macintosh and to convert their QuickTime
movies to Video for Windows. We have continued to improve this support. We
recently announced our intention to support the Video for Windows file
format on Apple systems without conversion.
Q13:What Microsoft titles include the allegedly infringing code?
A: We are still completing our investigation in this respect.
Q14:Will Apple's suit affect shipment of any Microsoft products?
A: We have not stopped shipment of any products.
Q15:What happens next?
A: Apple has filed for a preliminary injunction to prohibit us from
shipping the code in question. The hearing on that is scheduled for March
30.
Q16:What if I have questions not answered in this document?
A: If you have any further questions, please feel free to email
mmd...@microsoft.com.
Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft
Corporation.
Apple and Macintosh are registered trademarks and QuickTime is a trademark
of Apple Computer, Inc.
CompuServe is a registered trademark of CompuServe, Inc.
Andy Longton
The following comes from a forum on Compuserve called Canopus.
For details, logon to Compuserve and "go Canopus", message #335382,
section 6. Library 1 contains the full article mentioned in this
message.
-------
From - Andrew Schulman
----------------------
Thanks to Rick Segal's posting of Microsoft's Q&A in the Undoc Corner,
and the posting's mention of a file, DCISVGA.DRV, I was able to find
out a lot about what's happening in the Apple vs. Intel/Microsoft case.
I've uploaded a zip file, APPLE_MS.ZIP, containing APPLE_MS.TXT, with
some code comparisons between Apple's QTVHDW.DLL from QuickTime for
Windows with Intel/Microsoft's DCISVGA.DRV from Video for Windows.
The bottom line is that Intel/Microsoft are shipping code, part of
which is byte-for-byte identical with code that is in Apple's QuickTime
for Windows. Seems like someone sold their code to Apple, and then
sold some of it *again* to Intel/Microsoft (sort of like "The
Producers"). What blame there is on Microsoft's or Intel's part, I
don't know, but Microsoft/Intel sure seem to be shipping code that is
Apple copyright. Even if the code is totally insignificant (as
Microsoft seems to claim), it would make no difference in a copyright
case.
Andrew
Mark Eaton
since I know Mr. Mace won't. I think it is illuminating how derogatory,
condescending, and downright mean spirited he is. Is he an official
Microsoft representative on the 'net, or not? Mr Segal: if you are going
to make an official response to anything written on the net, I'd suggest
you be a little more polite and show a little more respect. If I ever read
another post by you that lacks those qualaties as much as your previous
post, I will put you in my kill file. I don't have to read your mockery. I
suggest anyone else who wants to see the net remain a safe forum for
discussion do the same.
In article <rsegal.11...@interramp.com>, rse...@interramp.com (Rick
Segal) wrote:
here:
> From: rse...@interramp.com (Rick Segal)
> Organization: OwnTime Inc.
Awfully biased and adversarial, on your own time.
and here:
> >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.
>
>
and here:
> 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..
>
Did he say anything about delaying your product? Or are you trying to
imply something?
and here:
>
> 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.
>
Why would you throw DCI out and start over from scratch?
and here:
>
> Awww, gee, Michael, define good faith. We (Microsoft) asked for a bunch of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
guess this means he is officially representing Microsoft. Indicative of
MS' attitudes about Apple?
> 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.
>
And what you are telling us is indisputable truth?
and here:
>
> Michael, why not come clean on this. If you were sincere, you
So you are saying he isn't?
and here:
> 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.
>
joint independant? huh!?!
and here:
> 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.
>
What difference does it make what this code is? Is it being distributed by
MS or what? And if so, why haven't you stopped? I think the entire
industry is sick of this attitude. MS can't just go around plucking other
companies' technologies and refuting it when caught. (DoubleSpace)
and here:
> 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
Ohhh. A knock down drag out? Is that what you want?
and here:
> settles we can resume the contest.
>
what contest?
and here:
>
> Rick Segal, Manager, Developer Relations
> Microsoft
> rse...@microsoft.com
>
> >Michael Mace
> >Director, Mac Platform Marketing
> >Apple Computer, Inc.
>
and here:
> Seee, Marketing... Told ya ;-0
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Eaton | MacXperts - Custom and Commercial
| Mac and Newton Software
ma...@infi.net | 3228L W. Cary St.
ma...@richmondinfi.net | Richmond, VA. 23221
| (804) 353-7122 FAX: (804) 358-3847
David Gutierrez
> Michael, a few comments:
<snip>
> What? You mean, finally, somebody from Apple gets the events correct.
<snip>
> There you go again. ripping off code is a bad thing, nobody disagrees.
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
> This is a marketing FUD bomb on your part to scare people into thinking
the OS
> will get delayed or recalled. Wrong..
<snip>
> 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.
<other immature dribblings deleted>
> Any chance we could confine this stuff to the technical facts.
Apparently not.
<snip>
> Seee, Marketing... Told ya ;-0
--
David Gutierrez
d...@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
Rick Segal
>And, Rick, use your microsoft address instead of this "interramp.com"
>stuff. Are you speaking as a MS employee or not? How unprofessional. :^(
>Bryan
Two things, Bryan.
One: I use my Interramp account because it is the account that I use to read
news. It is not any attempt to hide the MS employee status. I am on the road
and this is easy to use.
Two: I was a bit harsh, agreed. This he said/she said stuff is going way too
far. I'll tone it down a bit.
>R<
Ashley Gerard Perrien
: Gee do you think they have time to break away from the ever thrilling
: OJ/Ito show :-)
I sure hope so, I'd give my left arm to be in court watching this happen!
Ashley Perrien
Russ Taylor
<Apple trying to convince people Win95 will be delayed>
Hello Microsoft, it's already TWO YEARS LATE. Renaming it to 95 instead of
Win4 doesn't change that fact. And odds are quite good it'll slip to 96.
Note that Apple released the PowerPC when they said they would.
<Satisified Apple customers vs. satisifed Windows customers>
I don't hear many Apple customers calling System 7 a virus. Or having
nightmares with IRQs and Dos/Windows incompatibilities. At work, I see
this on WIndows all the time. If Microsoft really believes Windows 3.1 is
a quality product, they need a reality check. (Ditto for Word 6, the slowest,
most bloated program I have ever seen)
--
"Why do little blue midgets keep beating me with fish?" -- the Tick
Tom Halter
alon...@clark.net writes:
>From - Andrew Schulman
>----------------------
>
>Thanks to Rick Segal's posting of Microsoft's Q&A in the Undoc Corner,
>and the posting's mention of a file, DCISVGA.DRV, I was able to find
>out a lot about what's happening in the Apple vs. Intel/Microsoft case.
>
>I've uploaded a zip file, APPLE_MS.ZIP, containing APPLE_MS.TXT, with
>some code comparisons between Apple's QTVHDW.DLL from QuickTime for
>Windows with Intel/Microsoft's DCISVGA.DRV from Video for Windows.
Could someone with access to C$erve download this file and post it
for the rest of us to see?
------------------------| Learn from your parents' mistakes -
Tom Halter | use birth control!
Cleveland, Ohio |
mailto:t...@apk.net |------------------------------------------
1994 Acura Integra GS-R 1992 Honda CBR600F2 DoD#1365
Rick Segal
>From: ma...@richmond.infi.net (Mark Eaton)
>Subject: Re: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 15:35:31 -0500
[Mark's stuff snipped]
Yup, your right. My notes came off angry. It's because I am. Mean spirit?
No, I don't think so. My only issue out of the whole thing is this. If Apple
and Microsoft are not going to sit at the table and work it out, then, let's
all just wait for the court battles to conclude. It doesn't seem fair to me to
allow apple to make claims to developers that are simply not true. It doesn't
seem fair to me for Apple to make comments to the press that are not the
facts. Simple things that are so clearly wrong.
Just one example: Apple claims they got bullied about getting beta. But what
they didn't tell the press or the public or the Judge is that they are
complaining about getting *more* copies of the beta. They already had it. Ask
them. Ask Mark or David Nagel. So, why am I yelling like a nut case? I'm the
guy in charge. I'm the guy that made sure Apple got the beta in the first
place. I'm the guy that made sure they were allowed to attend every developer
conference, get updates, and get treated fairly. It is a matter of record,
ask apple.
So, yes, I get a really ripped over this. I'm not made at Apple for
complaining about the code nor am I making any judgement calls or talking
about it. What I am angry about is Apple having a field day at my group's
expense. They have bee treated fairly. We have never treated Apple in any
other way and I have a track record to prove it. Apple has every right to
jump up and down. I don't believe that right carries over to making up
support/beta/timeline stories.
>R<
Russ Taylor
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Never.
(of course, they've also promised the death of Macintosh with every new
release of Windows, with no success at all)
Make your PC a microsoft free zone!
Bryan Wu
>I took the time to pull some quotes out of Mr. Segals friendly response,
>since I know Mr. Mace won't. I think it is illuminating how derogatory,
>condescending, and downright mean spirited he is. Is he an official
>Microsoft representative on the 'net, or not? Mr Segal: if you are going
>to make an official response to anything written on the net, I'd suggest
>you be a little more polite and show a little more respect.
And, Rick, use your microsoft address instead of this "interramp.com"
Arne Bruening
>> > An open letter from Apple
I missed the original posting. Would anyone please repost it.
Arne
---*** final beta signature. Release-version soon to be released ***---
======================================================================
Arne Bruening, WMD GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
======================================================================
Tom Haapanen
b...@panix.com (Bryan Wu) writes:
> And, Rick, use your microsoft address instead of this "interramp.com"
> stuff. Are you speaking as a MS employee or not? How unprofessional. :^(
At least in the past, Microsoft's news server has been heavily backlogged,
making outside net access a desirable option for those employees wishing
to read and post news in a timely fashion -- quite a few others, besides
Rick Segal, are using outside net access as well. Not to mention people
from Apple, IBM, Borland and others doing the same thing...
So whatever the other arguments, there's no need to get on his case for
using an outside Internet service provider.
--
[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
[ "it's not how fast you go ... but how well you go fast" -- vw ad ]
David A. Kurtz
[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
> 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
Michael Guzzo
[Rick Segal's whining deleted]
Microsoft: Get a clue. There's more to QT than playing pictures on
the screen. QT handles any kind of time based data,
including movies, sound, scientific instrument data, etc.
QT is superior to VFW in every aspect. License it and
make Win9x's multimedia capabilities better. Personally,
I can't wait to see Win9x's capablities, not being a
beta tester and all. And no, I'll not spend $30 to beta test.
Apple: Go fix the System 7.5 bugs. I'm sick of the Finder telling
me I don't have a math coprocessor.
--
Michael Guzzo Microsoft at Work doesn't
msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov ClarisWorks does
Paul Rybarczyk
|> Simon K Boocock <sb...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
|> >> > An open letter from Apple
|>
|> I missed the original posting. Would anyone please repost it.
|>
|>
|>
|> Arne
|>
|>
|> ---*** final beta signature. Release-version soon to be released ***---
|>
Here it is...
Article: 58118 of comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!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: <mace1-210...@mac701.kip.apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac701.kip.apple.com
Xref: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu comp.sys.mac.advocacy:43038 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:58118 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia:2544 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:58517
An open letter from Apple
In the past few days, Intel and Microsoft said some remarkable things
Robert Elmer
>Hello Microsoft, it's already TWO YEARS LATE. Renaming it to 95 instead of
>Win4 doesn't change that fact. And odds are quite good it'll slip to 96.
>Note that Apple released the PowerPC when they said they would.
Funny, I thought Motorola released the PowerPC....
><Satisified Apple customers vs. satisifed Windows customers>
>I don't hear many Apple customers calling System 7 a virus. Or having
>nightmares with IRQs and Dos/Windows incompatibilities. At work, I see
>this on WIndows all the time.
It's pretty easy to define standards when you're the sole supplier for
hardware, isn't it....
>a quality product, they need a reality check. (Ditto for Word 6, the slowest,
>most bloated program I have ever seen)
Ever seen word perfect 6.x? Granted...word 6 is a bit piggish, but it's
certainly not alone in the field.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Elmer rel...@vt.edu
Software Engineer "What, me worry?"
Tetra Tech, Inc. (703)385-6000
Bootstrap1
>It doesn't seem fair to me to allow apple to make claims to developers
>that are simply not true. It doesn't seem fair to me for Apple to make
>comments to the press that are not the facts.
But Rick, it seems to me that there are only two things that Apple has
said to our community at large that you've taken exception with.
1) That Apple owns the code in question, and that Canyon had no right to
give it to Intel. As you've stated many times, you (and Microsoft) don't
have all the information to verify or deny this statement. Obviously, you
have no way of knowing whether this is true or not; obviously, Apple does
have all the information. So calling Apple a liar on this point is just
propoganda on your part.
2) That Apple and Microsoft have met to talk about this issue, and that
Microsoft stonewalled. Despite some early statements on your part that
your companies hadn't met, your last big response indicates that your
companies have met over this issue. You characterize it as Apple sending
a bunch of lawyers, Apple characterizes it as an ongoing set of meetings,
including a conversation between Spindler and Gates. Is Apple lying? You
suggest they stonewalled, they suggest you stonewalled; clearly a
subjective issue, so I'd say that calling someone a liar in public over it
is a little strong unless you've got something to back it up.
BTW, you bashes against Apple and claims to be just an ordinary "working
guy" look pretty thin when you start only telling part of the story. In
response to Apple's claim about Microsoft not sending copies of Windows 95
betas to Apple because of this lawsuit, all you say is that it really
wasn't that bad because these were additional copies, and Apple already
had some.
In other words, you aren't denying that Microsoft withheld beta copies
(additional or otherwise) of their next major operating system release
from a supplier of Windows software (AppleSoft) simply because Apple filed
a lawsuit against Microsoft to prevent Microsoft from pirating Apple's
copyrighted software. And yet you go on to say that you've always treated
Apple fairly.
Maybe you don't see this as a big problem, but all of us thousands of
Windows software developers out here see this as a huge problem. A lot of
us would not even have the financial backing to go after Microsoft for a
copyright or patent violation; the idea that those that do are going to
have Microsoft start cutting off essential development tools is
incredible. Rick, the thing that scares so many of us is that, even if
Microsoft isn't yet a monopoly, as you guys claim, you sure as hell are
acting like one.
Nathan Tennies
Mark Alan Cirino
or the methods being used in this "PR" campaign. I have to say though,
that it's obvious that the Apple guy knows quite a bit more about grammar
and punctuation than the Microsoft guy. Doesn't Word 6 have a grammar
checker? Oh, maybe he removed it to save space on his hard disk. Yeah,
that's it . . .
- mark alan
Robert Rhode
whether to laugh, cry or vomit.
- Bob
Master's Thesis: 102 pages and growing, guaranteed 100% Microsoft free!
"Better dead than Redmond!"
Nathan Hand
: Gee, would the company that promised Win4 in 93 lie to us?
Do you imagine Apple would never lie? There are several possibilities
and you are being horribly biassed in believing MS is lying just bec-
ause they disagree with Apple. Wait for the court decision. Making an
opinion early is likely to be erroneous.
--
"Ive never been so insulted in my life" +-----------------------
"Well, its early yet" +-----------------+ nat...@bin.anu.edu.au
----------------------+ I read the news reguarly -- sad, isnt it
see...@iastate.edu
[yank]
> Michael, why not come clean on this. If you were sincere, you
> would do the following.
[snarf]
Mr. Segal,
If YOU were sincere and CALM, you would be a whole lot more believable
and probably less likely to be an ulcer candidate. As it stands, most
people who have followed this thread currently believe you to be a foaming
at the mouth dog, barking himself hoarse trying to get people to pay
attention to him. Though you have a right to make your points however you
wish, the only place you probably going to wind up using this tactic is
the unemployment line.
My suggestion is: that if you like your job, and I've got a feeling
that you do, you might consider writing your angriest, bitterest reply but
not sending it. Take a break and walk around the building a few times,
come back a rewrite the whole damn thing in a calm rational tone. Hurling
insults & counter accusations just makes you look like an angry, bratty
child. Right now most of Mac folks simply feel sorry for you. Not for
your position and certainly not for how you fell Apple has "wronged" you
personally. They feel sorry for you because you can't seem to make a
point without resorting to name calling and derogatory comments.
Hey, you may wonder why I bothered to write this... and no, I'm not a
devoted MS developer trying help you make your point better. As a matter
of fact I usually have very little nice to say about your company.
Microsoft's latest revision of Word for the Mac probably cost me my last
pay raise. We're still trying find the budget around here to upgrade the
RAM and hard drives of 75% of our computers just so that we can run and
store Word 6 in addition to our other software. Personally, having tried
Word 6, I don't think it worth the trouble, but that's another story all
together.
The reason I wrote this is because you remind me of me... someone who
is loyal to his company and passionate about defending it and his code. I
know I'd be pissed if I were you and believed what you believe. Hell, I
used to write posts just like yours arguing my points, but I found it
didn't get me as far as the guys who didn't resort to name calling even
when someone else called them names first.
Have I become a pacifist, HELL NO. I still argue my points till people
either get tired of listening or accept the fact that I'm right... but now
I just do it with a little more tact and a lot less yelling. The real
upside though is that people take me a whole lot more seriously and I get
the desired results a whole lot faster.
I know that my chances of getting you to change your ways are probably
the same as the chances that I'll ever buy a Pentium for any reason. You
see, I've used both Macs and PCs running Windows, and to me there is no
comparison. Though you could probably pay me enough to make me put a
Pentium on my desk, if you try to take away my Mac, I'll beat the ever
lovin' crap outta ya. You probably feel the exact same way about your
machine of choice. If so, it only goes to prove that though we're awful
different, we're also alot alike. Anyhow, I felt I ought to at least try
to come to the aid of a kindred spirit (albeit an extremely distant one).
-=- John Turnipseed...
aka see...@iastate.edu
yes, my name is "Turnipseed"... yeah, "it really is"!
And as for those of you out there who think I'm nuts for trying to help
the "enemy", I've got a surprise for you... it don't matter. This thing
is destined to be another infinite court battle where nobody except the
poor shmoe who sold the same code twice will ever admit to being wrong
(and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't suddenly started claiming his
innocence too).
I've got my own opinion about who is in the wrong... but you folks
don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kindneys about opinions... so I say
let's try to get some clean, well presented information out of the people
with an inside track.
Rick Segal
Two comments.
1. I am not making any claims about ownership of the code. It is up to a court
to decide.
2. The issue of betas. We might be spliting hairs here. Apple has attempted
to portray Microsoft as withholding beta software. That statement is false
from our perspective because they had the software and had been getting
updates. What Apple was looking for was to expand the teams who had it. My
issue is what them lawyers call common law meaning. When somebody reads
"not getting beta", it implies more than there is and it results in
the WSJ article which even my mother assumed to be that we had shut out the QT
for Windows team, Claris, etc. Not true. So my problem is the very very
selective use of the words "not getting beta." It causes the average reader to
assume more than there is. The other point is this issue of having to call
the DOJ. When you have a record of shipment and you look at the record of
shipment, then listen to Apple, well, I get a bit bonkers cuz the times ain't
lining up with the stories.
I'll conceed that calling them liars is strong and I should have choosen the
words better.
>R<
Joe Ragosta
Segal) wrote:
>
> Just one example: Apple claims they got bullied about getting beta. But what
> they didn't tell the press or the public or the Judge is that they are
> complaining about getting *more* copies of the beta. They already had it. Ask
So what? If you sent them one copy and they are not legally allowed to
make copies it would be largely useless for a company the size of Apple.
> them. Ask Mark or David Nagel. So, why am I yelling like a nut case? I'm the
> guy in charge. I'm the guy that made sure Apple got the beta in the first
See, "the" beta. How many copies do you send to other developers?
> place. I'm the guy that made sure they were allowed to attend every developer
> conference, get updates, and get treated fairly. It is a matter of record,
> ask apple.
>
> So, yes, I get a really ripped over this. I'm not made at Apple for
> complaining about the code nor am I making any judgement calls or talking
> about it. What I am angry about is Apple having a field day at my group's
> expense. They have bee treated fairly. We have never treated Apple in any
> other way and I have a track record to prove it. Apple has every right to
> jump up and down. I don't believe that right carries over to making up
> support/beta/timeline stories.
From everything I've read, Apple's got a whole lot better case than
Microsoft. You've spent several weeks complaining about how bad Apple is,
but you don't have any legitimate defense that I can see.
>
> >R<
--
------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
doc...@interramp.com
100% Chemical -- and proud of it.
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995
License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message at no charge.
Joe Ragosta
Actually, I hope Rick keeps it up. And I hope someone from Apple is saving
every word. Rick keeps digging Microsoft's grave deeper and deeper.
>
> Bryan
Joe Ragosta
Segal) wrote:
> In article <3ijokc$i...@panix.com> b...@panix.com (Bryan Wu) writes:
>
> >And, Rick, use your microsoft address instead of this "interramp.com"
> >stuff. Are you speaking as a MS employee or not? How unprofessional. :^(
>
>
> Two: I was a bit harsh, agreed. This he said/she said stuff is going way too
> far. I'll tone it down a bit.
>
> >R<
No, please don't. I LIKE seeing Microsoft look stupid.
Russ Taylor
> Russ Taylor (rta...@cie-2.uoregon.edu) wrote:
> : Gee, would the company that promised Win4 in 93 lie to us?
> Do you imagine Apple would never lie? There are several possibilities
> and you are being horribly biassed in believing MS is lying just bec-
> ause they disagree with Apple. Wait for the court decision. Making an
> opinion early is likely to be erroneous.
History makes it pretty clear that Microsoft and Intel are far more likely
to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here a year late
with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes on and on
Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
Steve Hecker
>
>In article <rsegal.11...@interramp.com>, rse...@interramp.com (Rick
>Segal) wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>[Bunch of crap deleted}
>Look--you admit right here that you're using Apple code. Apple does not
>want you to use it. You have no legal right to do so whether they're nice
>about it or not. Get the damned code out of your software.
>
>None of your bullshit addresses any of these facts.
>
>--
> ------------------------------------------------
> Regards,
> Joe Ragosta
> doc...@interramp.com
>
You're assuming that Apple's claim has merit, when an Apple victory is a far from certain.
Apple hired San Franciso Canyon to do some development work for Quicktime. San Francisco Canyon
was also under contract to Intel to do development work of a similar nature. Microsoft licensed
portions of VFW from Intel. Apple claims that code delivered by SFC to Intel contained code that
Apple paid SFC to develop. Intel claims that the code Apple is claiming title to, had already been
licensed to Intel.
Dave Stevens
rse...@interramp.com (Rick Segal) writes:
> Michael, a few comments:
>
[snipping a rather unprofessionl, personal diatribe]
Mr Segal....
Please take this as constructive criticism. Your recent posts
regarding the Canyon/Intel v Apple lawsuit have been poorly
communicated, leaving some in the developer community with a rather
negative professional opinion of yourself and the Microsoft
Corporation. Your personal attacks and sarcastic tone in this
disscussion do not lend crediblity to your cause. Given Microsofts
past alleged behavour and reputation, in the Mac community in
particular, your response to Mr. Maces comments is doing little to
foster the support Microsoft Corp will need from this community.
Remember, Sir, you posted here first. If you couldn't participate in a
professional, objective debate, you should have stayed off Usenet. I
would think Chairman Gates would be embarassed by your inmature,
unprofessional conduct, representing Microsoft Corp.
Gregory Weston
Nathan Hand <nat...@bin.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Russ Taylor (rta...@cie-2.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>Do you imagine Apple would never lie? There are several possibilities
>and you are being horribly biassed in believing MS is lying just bec-
>ause they disagree with Apple. Wait for the court decision. Making an
>opinion early is likely to be erroneous.
Note that the previous poster did not make any claims regarding companies
other than Microsoft...Perhaps he is being 'horribly biased' for
historical reasons. He may believe Microsoft - as an organization - is
prone to lying because they have done so (frequently and boldly) in the
past. This is also not to say that they never tell the truth. But I doubt
highly that the original poster and I are anomolous in taking anything
and everything that comes out of Redmond with a grain <shaker> of salt.
There's too much historical reason to be skeptical of their claims.
Why would the court decision be more valid than this opinion? More
binding, yes, but more correct? The government and the legal system are
notoriously behind the times as far as computer industry issues go.
Greg
--
*** Bastion Products: Where classic quality meets modern technology. ***
Well, in fact, this post DOES represent the opinions of Bastion Products.
How's that for a switch?
Joe Ragosta
>
> 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.
[Bunch of crap deleted}
Look--you admit right here that you're using Apple code. Apple does not
want you to use it. You have no legal right to do so whether they're nice
about it or not. Get the damned code out of your software.
None of your bullshit addresses any of these facts.
--
------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
doc...@interramp.com
100% Chemical -- and proud of it.
Joseph Palmer
<sb...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> As a recent editorial in MacWeek pointed out, Microsoft tried to
> deal with Apple for a license when QuickTime was first released.
> Apple it seems rebuffed them, their corporate
> culture was a little different in those days.
I worked at Apple at the time, and the story I heard (directly from
Sculley, in a large meeting) was that earlyer that day Bill himself had
in fact offered to help make Quicktime(tm) a standard by including it in
Windows(tm), and that Bill had offered the generous sum of $0.00 per copy.
That's right, just give it to us for free, and we will help establish it
as a standard!
Sculley said no.
J.
P.S. Is anyone forwarding this thread to Judge Sporken?
--- I'm still waiting for Pen Windows(tm) for Newton(tm).
--
-- Joseph Palmer
Christian Smith
Taylor) wrote:
> History makes it pretty clear that Microsoft and Intel are far more likely
> to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here a year late
> with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes on and on
> Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
And you can't really blame Apple for this, can you? I mean, there
comes a time when you have to drop the fat, and the Apple II just no
longer held a future for Apple.
Jason Untulis
First of all, bad form for not including a cite to Michael's article in
your reply
In article <rsegal.11...@interramp.com>, rse...@interramp.com (Rick
Segal) wrote:
[">>" is Michael Mace speaking]
>>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.
[Mace quote deleted]
>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..
Uhh, somehow I don't think you're shipping source code to your betas on
the respective CDs. Without that, there's no way to see if the alleged
offending code is present.
>>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.
Rick, it might help to annotate the timeline provided by Pieter Hartsook
(as far as MS' involvement) with any inaccuracies and when and where the
information was asked for. Just for the record.
>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
In article <3if8un$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, hart...@aol.com (Hartsook)
wrote:
>=====================================================================
>Apple Computer, Inc.
>Chronology of efforts to resolve this matter with Intel and Microsoft.
[...]
>2/7/95- Guerrino De Luca of Apple and Carl Storch of Microsoft
> confer by telephone on Canyon matter, but make no progress.
I don't know what Mr. De Luca's title/role is, but I remember Carl Stork
as being in charge of OS development, I believe a parallel to David
Nagel's position (or maybe one below Nagel). It sounds like something like
this sorta already happened.
--
#include <std/disclaimer> (C) 1995. All rights reserved.
Jason Untulis untulis@ (netcom.com) (tower.tandem.com)
2<S/N: Scientology CoS Kibo C&S Green Card CyberSell
<next grepper enter name here>
This space to be filled by a fortune or Internet Config's Random Signatures.
Tom Halter
rta...@cie-2.uoregon.edu writes:
>History makes it pretty clear that Microsoft and Intel are far more likely
>to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here a year late
>with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes on and on
>Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
Actually, there are still some Apple II bits on Apple's parts
list, and up until recently, Educational customers could still buy
a new Apple IIe from Apple.
------------------------| Learn from your parents' mistakes -
Tom Halter | use birth control!
Cleveland, Ohio |
mailto:t...@apk.net |------------------------------------------
1994 Acura Integra GS-R 1992 Honda CBR600F2 DoD#1365
Loren Petrich
` There is a way that "Apple II Forever!" could be something less
than a lie. It would be for Apple to offer an Apple II emulator that runs
on a Macintosh. It would emulate the Apple II's CPU and it would produce
its output in a window on the Mac screen. Even with emulation, I'm sure
that the resulting SoftAppleII would be *much faster than even the
fastest hardware Apple II.
--
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
pet...@netcom.com Happiness is a fast Macintosh
l...@s1.gov And a fast train
Patrick McKinnion
Petrich) wrote:
> ` There is a way that "Apple II Forever!" could be something less
> than a lie. It would be for Apple to offer an Apple II emulator that runs
> on a Macintosh. It would emulate the Apple II's CPU and it would produce
> its output in a window on the Mac screen. Even with emulation, I'm sure
> that the resulting SoftAppleII would be *much faster than even the
> fastest hardware Apple II.
There actually are some Apple II software emulators for Mac and
PowerMac, and they are freeware to boot !
However, your best bet is getting a LC / Performa model, and
installing Apple's Apple II board on it.
- Patrick McKinnion
--
... Brought to you by "Ouchies" the sharp prickly toy you bathe with........
Geoff Pursell
: Funny, I thought Motorola released the PowerPC....
They did. So did IBM. But he meant the PowerPC _Macs_, which Apple DID
release, and right on schedule.
: Ever seen word perfect 6.x? Granted...word 6 is a bit piggish, but it's
: certainly not alone in the field.
Yes, it is. It's the only word processor that is way too huge, AND
moronically slow on every mac up to the 8100/100 mhz. I have seen a
graphical word processor on an APPLE IIGS that runs faster that Word 6 for Mac.
________________________________________________________________
_____ | |
|,---,| Macintosh is the | Geoff Pursell |
||___|| Superior. | 10...@suzie.tccn.com |
|o --|\ |---------------------------------|
===== ) | "Violence is the last refuge |
_( | of the incompetent." |
/_/ +---------------------------------+
Matt Peterson
nat...@bin.anu.edu.au (Nathan Hand) writes:
> : Gee, would the company that promised Win4 in 93 lie to us?
>
> Do you imagine Apple would never lie? There are several possibilities
> and you are being horribly biassed in believing MS is lying just bec-
> ause they disagree with Apple. Wait for the court decision. Making an
> opinion early is likely to be erroneous.
Yeah, I guess Stacker lied, too.
Matt Peterson - University of Kansas, Experimental Psychology
Jeff Binkley
JR> ------------------------------------------------
JR> Regards,
JR> Joe Ragosta
JR> doc...@interramp.com
JR> 100% Chemical -- and proud of it.
JR> Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
JR>form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995
JR> License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.
JR>Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
JR> Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by
JR>Microsoft may use this message at no charge.
How trite... Get a life...
Jeff
CMPQwk 1.42-20 9999 A recession is what takes the wind out of your sales.
Jeff Binkley
JR>No, please don't. I LIKE seeing Microsoft look stupid.
JR>--
JR> ------------------------------------------------
JR> Regards,
JR> Joe Ragosta
JR> doc...@interramp.com
JR> 100% Chemical -- and proud of it.
JR> Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
JR>form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995
JR> License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.
JR>Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
JR> Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by
JR>Microsoft may use this message at no charge.
You aren't exactly flaming with brilliance...
Jeff
CMPQwk 1.42-20 9999 "Happiness is a warm puppy." said the anaconda.
Yi Sun
>> to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here a year late
>> with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes on and on
>> Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
>And you can't really blame Apple for this, can you? I mean, there
>comes a time when you have to drop the fat, and the Apple II just no
>longer held a future for Apple.
Actully Apple had it's share of delays(you can't really call most of the above
lies anyways), for those of you who have short memories, System 7 is one such.
I like both Mac OS and Windows 3.11/NT. As long as Microsoft and Apple leave
us developers out of it, let them fight it out. Maybe we'll get something
better out of them.
Although one would easily favor more the better organized, well worded and
professionally presented argument offered by the Apple Rep. Words such as
Awww, gee, Ooopseee, etc. tend to have negative effects on an argument by
making the reader question the intelectual level of the speaker.(Even if the
speaker had some equally effective and valid points)
>It would be for Apple to offer an Apple II emulator that runs
>on a Macintosh. It would emulate the Apple II's CPU and it would produce
There is such a thing, as well a plug in board option. Apple IIe on steroids.
Yi.
Alex Stephens
.> >History makes it pretty clear that Microsoft and Intel are far more likely
.> >to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here a year late
.> >with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes on and on
.> >Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
.>
.> Actually, there are still some Apple II bits on Apple's parts
.> list, and up until recently, Educational customers could still buy
.> a new Apple IIe from Apple.
They even have Apple II files on their ftp sites. I wonder if Microsoft
offer any support for the software they made for now-obsolete systems.
--
Alex Stephens
e-mail - ale...@ccnet.com
WWW - http://ccnet.com/~alex900)
Jie Yang
ale...@ccnet.com (Alex Stephens) wrote:
>In article <3iqgg0$h...@wariat.wariat.org>, Tom Halter <t...@apk.net>
wrote:
>
more likely
>..> >to lie than Apple. Stacker, WinNT, the Overdrive Pentium (here
a year late
>..> >with no mention that it was), Pentium fp, Win95, the list goes
on and on
>..> >Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
>..>
>..> Actually, there are still some Apple II bits on Apple's parts
>..> list, and up until recently, Educational customers could still
buy
>..> a new Apple IIe from Apple.
>
>They even have Apple II files on their ftp sites. I wonder if
Microsoft
>offer any support for the software they made for now-obsolete
systems.
>
Microsoft ftp site. 1500+ files and huge KB's. On the contrary, how
many files can you find in ftp.apple.com or support.apple.com? can
you find a System 7.5 resource kit there? You can find RK's for both
windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.5. Anyway, what's the point of
supporting obselete softwares or hardwares? Wouldn't that just add
cost to new systems?
Illya Vaes
>In article <marke-23029...@h-green.richmond.infi.net> ma...@richmond.infi.net (Mark Eaton) writes:
>all just wait for the court battles to conclude. It doesn't seem fair to me to
>allow apple to make claims to developers that are simply not true. It doesn't
>seem fair to me for Apple to make comments to the press that are not the
>facts. Simple things that are so clearly wrong.
Excuuuuuse Me!
Apple making claims to developers that are simply not true???
Apple making comments to the press that are not the facts???
Can you say 'Chicago' or 'Windows 95'?
"No thunking down to the win16 kernel from win32 apps" ??
"No executing DOS code from win32 apps" ??
"Integrated, protected-mode operating system that dispense with DOS" ??
"Implements win32" ??
Simple things that are so clearly wrong.
If you believe what you're saying, wake up.
If you're just bullshitting, go f*ck off.
--
Illya Vaes (iv...@ib.ns.nl) "Do...or do not, there is no trying" - Yoda
Dutch Rail Engineering, Signalling CAD "He meddled with things man was meant
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht to leave alone" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Tel +31.30.358586, Fax 357212 MS-Windows, the Dark Side of the GUI
William ( Bill ) Wagner
> Apple's major lie to date: Apple II forever.
Anybody remember this?
Did it *ever* get released?
--
Bill Wagner || AT&T Net: (313) 428-1168
Wagner Associates || Internet: wa...@mail.msen.com
307 S. Macomb
Manchester MI, 48158
Mark Eaton
Yang) wrote:
> But let's not forget about the amount of information you can get from
> Microsoft ftp site. 1500+ files and huge KB's. On the contrary, how
> many files can you find in ftp.apple.com or support.apple.com? can
> you find a System 7.5 resource kit there? You can find RK's for both
(What the hell is a resource kit?)
> windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.5. Anyway, what's the point of
But can you download a version, any version, of MS Windows from the MS ftp
site? And yes, there is a _ton_ of information from the various Apple
servers (including, but not limited to, seeding.apple.com, abs.apple.com,
austin.apple.com, etc)
Apple currently has a project under way to put _all_ of Inside Mac in HTML
format and make it freely accesible to anyone on the net. So whats your
point again?
> supporting obselete softwares or hardwares? Wouldn't that just add
> cost to new systems?
Might matter a lot to you if you owned one of those 'obsolete' systems.
After all, isn't that what MS and Intel are all about, backwards
compatibility? Support for obscelsence?
And no, sticking the info on an ftp server won't add any noticeable cost
to new systems.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eaton
ma...@richmond.infi.net
Michael Guzzo
(wa...@garnet.msen.comWagner) wrote...
I have one. Still use it. Next question?
--
Michael Guzzo My Lisa is certified
msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov virus...er, Microsoft
free
Alex Stephens
( Bill ) Wagner) wrote:
> Lisa?
> Anybody remember this?
>
> Did it *ever* get released?
Yup, it sure did; back in 1983. It was far better than anything else
available at the time (rather more expensive too, though). It was later
bundled with a Mac emulator, renamed the Mac XL, and was eventually
replaced by the Mac Plus.
phil dawkins
ma...@richmond.infi.net (Mark Eaton) writes:
>In article <3j09vd$bog...@TS8-54.upenn.EDU>, jie...@brahms.udel.edu
(Jie
>Yang) wrote:
>
>> But let's not forget about the amount of information you can get from
>> Microsoft ftp site. 1500+ files and huge KB's. On the contrary, how
[snippo]
>But can you download a version, any version, of MS Windows from the MS
ftp
>site? And yes, there is a _ton_ of information from the various Apple
[snippo2]
Yes, this has been bothering me for a while. It's an information
overload jobbie. The _amount_ of information isn't important, it's the
quality of it, and wading through these vast tracts of nonsense is no
pleasure. This has clearly spread to Borland and many other s/w
companies (how many disks does it take to provide a C compiler? - Need a
CD-ROM - i *dont* think so). I am interested in downloading black boxes
that do a job, but having looked at some of the stuff available, there
is no excitement in wading through megabytes of tosh, just to find
something important. From what i understand IBM did just this in their
antitrust suit. Instead of not releasing information, they provided so
much of it that it wasn't possible to get the wheat from the chaff.
If the U.S. want to maintain their leed in hightech, then this is
exactly the sort of stuff that needs to be shipped to China - it should
immediately compromise their ability to achieve any sort of development
("yes i know the rice needs to be watered, but should the splash screen
be prepared in JPG or BMP format? - and what about a WWW for our
irrigation techniques?").
Let's look at it the other way around: for example, we bought SoftICE
and what really impressed us about NuMega was that the stuff got shipped
on a single disk and provided things that i really needed (no
objecticeforwindowslibraryserviceinterfacesinc++) and could not have got
anywhere else (afaik).
whinge for today,
phil.
--
The world is divided into two sorts of people: those that believe the
world is divided into two sorts of people, and those that don't.
will simpson
Moberg) wrote:
> And were the Pentium fp bug really big? I mean, IBM's claim that the
> fp bug would affect the average spreadsheet user every 2 months or so, *is*
> a lie! The average user will most likely spend time with 2 decimal points
> and the bug affects the 4th decimal at worst!!!
>
> =======================================ftp to:==========================
> -== R.Moberg, author of CD-Player Pro! = ftp.cica.indiana.edu ==-
> =======================================/pub/pc/win3/sound/cdppro45.zip==
you dont need to have any decimal places, an especielly large number could
also squish, divide, improperly... playing around in the computer store
for about ten minutes yielded three such divisions where the abberation
was for than one percent... which is very significant since those figures
could easily be shares, taxes, profit, etc... VERY significant...
Alexander the great
Someone want to repost the chronology of events? My news server has been doing
death throws and I've missed alot :( (or mail)
Danks,
Scott, w/o line delete!
Terje A. Bergesen
> ><Apple trying to convince people Win95 will be delayed>
> >Hello Microsoft, it's already TWO YEARS LATE. Renaming it to 95 instead of
> >Win4 doesn't change that fact. And odds are quite good it'll slip to 96.
> >Note that Apple released the PowerPC when they said they would.
>
> Funny, I thought Motorola released the PowerPC....
You trying to be funny on his behalf? Motorola never released the
PowerPC. The PowerPC is a spec. The PPC601 chip is an implementation
of the PowerPC spec...
> Ever seen word perfect 6.x? Granted...word 6 is a bit piggish, but it's
> certainly not alone in the field.
A bit piggish? That's the understatement of the year.
_______________________________________________________________________
Terje Bergesen - Bergesen Data
Rune Moberg
What lies have been made concerning NT and Win95?
And were the Pentium fp bug really big? I mean, IBM's claim that the
fp bug would affect the average spreadsheet user every 2 months or so, *is*
a lie! The average user will most likely spend time with 2 decimal points
and the bug affects the 4th decimal at worst!!!
Then IBM say they won't sell any Pentiums until the bug is fixed, which
makes one wonder, because they would most likely configure these machines
as servers, that will not do any fp at all... Surely we all remember the
early 386 CPU's... They weren't exactly bugfree either and IBM didn't say
anything then.
The reason for me mentioning IBM is that they co-operate alot with Apple
these days. Or do they? Have they kept their timelimits? Have they released
the products they've promised their customers? I've seen plenty of
indications that their co-operation isn't that co-operative after all...
Back to Intel: Intel covering up the Pentium bug? If I as a software
developer find a bug that I'm responsible for, then the first thing I do
is start fixing it. I do not inform the customer if I think the bug won't
kill anyone. Or do you guys think I should spend time constructing a
nice-looking newsletter saying "Do not use my software, because I found
a bug!"? -nah...
DISCLAIMER: uhm, the reference to bugs in my software was purely
hypothetical or something. Honest.
Olafur Gunnlaugsson
Possibly
However Microsoft has been selling the future again and again
with pruducts such as MSX-Dos, Dos 3 (a true multitasking kernel version of
DOS), Dos 4 (ditto), the recommedation that you used the DOSAPI (microsoft
itself newer did BTW, just wanted others to use it), OS/2 v.1 etc, that they
could at the least give a nod in the direction to us, the suckers that fell
for it and paid dearly:
Alexander the great
> In article <3j09vd$bog...@TS8-54.upenn.EDU>, jie...@brahms.udel.edu (Jie
> Yang) wrote:
>
>> But let's not forget about the amount of information you can get from
>> Microsoft ftp site. 1500+ files and huge KB's. On the contrary, how
>> many files can you find in ftp.apple.com or support.apple.com? can
>> you find a System 7.5 resource kit there? You can find RK's for both
>
> (What the hell is a resource kit?)
>
>> windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.5. Anyway, what's the point of
>
> But can you download a version, any version, of MS Windows from the MS ftp
> site? And yes, there is a _ton_ of information from the various Apple
> servers (including, but not limited to, seeding.apple.com, abs.apple.com,
> austin.apple.com, etc)
>
> Apple currently has a project under way to put _all_ of Inside Mac in HTML
> format and make it freely accesible to anyone on the net. So whats your
> point again?
Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger. Course,
Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next Photoshop.
Assuming, of course you've the proper tools (computer, complier, etc).
Its not quantity, its quality!
Michael Guzzo
>Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
>programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
>paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
>foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
>Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
>resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger. Course,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next Photoshop.
>Assuming, of course you've the proper tools (computer, complier, etc).
Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
--
Michael Guzzo My Macintosh is certified
msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov virus...er, Microsoft free
THUND...@news.delphi.com
>In article <3jf83m$k...@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov> msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael Guzzo) writes:
> Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
> to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>I've never heard that. In fact, they'd probably get put down hard if they
>tried something like it.
Well, it's true, to some extent. I believe it applies mainly to Visual
C++.
>Borland however, did have some funny restrictions on one of their recent
>compiler's that they later withdrew due to customer complaints.
Borland sounds an awful lot like Symantec.
________________.______.._____...___....._.....................
Chris Thomas, thund...@delphi.com, logic analysis paralysis
"And how did someone screw this up? Let's call up Symantec and scream
at them for a while."
Ed McCreary
Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
I've never heard that. In fact, they'd probably get put down hard if they
tried something like it.
Borland however, did have some funny restrictions on one of their recent
compiler's that they later withdrew due to customer complaints.
--
.__o Ed McCreary "The Information Superhighway, sanitized
_-\ <,- Compaq Computers for your protection."
(*)/ (*) e...@twisto.compaq.com
Eric Rosenquist
>
> In article <3jf83m$k...@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov> msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael Guzzo) writes:
>
> Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
> to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>
> I've never heard that. In fact, they'd probably get put down hard if they
> tried something like it.
They have a restriction on a *portion* of their Visual C++ Cross-Development
Edition for the Macintosh. My copy is still on back-order, but I believe it
only refers to what they call the WPL - Windows Portability Libraries, i.e.,
the Windows API on the Mac.
This library of low-level code originated from their Mac applications group
and is what they use internally as part of their Mac products which share
common code with their Windows counterparts (Word and Excel for example).
If I were in their position I think I'd be doing the same, otherwise they'd
be giving their major competitors a straightforward way to port their Windows
apps to the Mac for under $2000.
Eric
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Eric Rosenquist | "He had very thin English skin and very
Enterprise Solutions Ltd. | thick alcoholic blood."
Email : rose...@esltd.com | -- David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap
Opinions: are my own |
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Ed McCreary
e...@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>In article <3jf83m$k...@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov> msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael Guzzo) writes:
> Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
> to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>I've never heard that. In fact, they'd probably get put down hard if they
>tried something like it.
Well, it's true, to some extent. I believe it applies mainly to Visual
C++.
Could your provide a reference? I just looked over the license agreement
and didn't see anything like it. I could have missed it though.
Alan Finlay
>An open letter from Apple
>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?
Ok, let us assume for argument that the source files Apple commissioned from
Canyon or derivatives of them were supplied to Microsoft.
I would like to know the following before coming to a personal judgement:
1a) Was it clear to Canyon that the code being developed would belong in whole
to Apple and that Canyon would have no rights to the code whatsoever?
1b) If not then what rights does Canyon have to the code?
I presume Canyon does have some rights to the software or otherwise why did
Apple hire Canyon to develop the code, couldn't Apple have written it entirely
by itself?
This is only one step removed from the case where a programmer is required to
sign a non-disclosure agreement with his or her employer. Personally such
an agreement would be so disagreeable to me I would never do this. I expect
to learn from my experience of programming and apply that knowledge. I have
developed lots of little techniques over the years and I expect to carry
them with me from one job to another. I can't easily pretend to myself I
don't know something. I'm sure it can be done but I would rather not carry
all that extra overhead when problem solving. If Canyon had not simply
copied the code, but had rewritten it from scratch using the knowledge
it gained from its partnership with Apple, then would Apple still be suing?
2) If Microsoft also commisioned code from Canyon could it claim to have been
unaware or not legally responsible for the fact that Canyon broke its agreement
with Apple?
For example, it is feasible that Canyon has exclusive or joint copyright for
code (it being written by its staff in consultation with Apple staff as
I understand things) and a legally binding agreement not to supply the code
to anyone else.
If Canyon breaks its agreement with Apple then that does not necessarily
imply that Microsoft has breached copyright. Apple would only have legal
recourse to sue Canyon for breach of contract.
This is a major problem with our current capitalist system. For example,
suppose I want to destroy the environment and make a quick buck for my
Mega company. Then rather than risk the Mega company's capital, I can
create a small legally independant subsidiary company which does all the dirty
work and "sells" its product to the parent company. The subsidiary company
is a "disposable" legal entity that takes legal responsibility for the outrage
but has little in the way of assets to compensate society.
I'm not sure if it is necessary to hide the parent/child company relationship
but clearly that is easy to do if necessary, especially when multinational
companies are involved.
--
,-------Alan Finlay, email: al...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au, phone: (03)565-5225.
| World Wide Web URL: http://www.cs.monash.edu.au:80/~alanf/
`-------Computer Science Dept., Monash University, CLAYTON 3168, Australia.
========== FRAUDULANT THIRD WORLD DEBT SHOULD BE WRITTEN OFF ========
David Charles Leblanc
>Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
>to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
I believe you are thinking of Borland's gaffe.
--
David Charles LeBlanc
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt6...@acme.gatech.edu
Ian Chard
>I must disagree. Microsoft's "developer network" (MSDN) program gets you
>EVERYTHING you need as a developer for a very modest price. Most valuable
>of all is the "Developer's Library" - a CD-ROM with 120,000+ pages of
>information on it. Having written software for both the PC and the Mac I
>have to say that I consider Microsoft's technical information to be of a
>superior quality to that offered by Apple!
I completely agree about the Development Library, it is an invaluable
resource. However, I do think there is one glaring omission from the
MSDNL2 package, and that's a compiler. Without that, you can't develop
a thing. I've never really understood why Microsoft don't offer a third
level of membership which includes a Visual C++ subscription.
Cheers
Ian
--
[ Ian Chard, HBM Ltd | To sculpt an elephant, obtain a large ]
[ Email: i...@tanagra.demon.co.uk | block of marble and remove all the bits ]
[ NTS: G7OMZ @ GB7VRB.#38.GBR.EU | that don't resemble an elephant. ]
[ PGP 2.6 available on request | -- Anon ]
Chris Marriott
cz...@wittenberg.edu "Alexander the great" writes:
>In article <marke-28029...@h-ivory.richmond.infi.net>,
> ma...@richmond.infi.net (Mark Eaton) writes:
>> In article <3j09vd$bog...@TS8-54.upenn.EDU>, jie...@brahms.udel.edu (Jie
>> Yang) wrote:
>>
>Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
>programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
>paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
>foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
>Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
>resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger. Course,
>Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next Photoshop.
>
>Assuming, of course you've the proper tools (computer, complier, etc).
I must disagree. Microsoft's "developer network" (MSDN) program gets you
EVERYTHING you need as a developer for a very modest price. Most valuable
of all is the "Developer's Library" - a CD-ROM with 120,000+ pages of
information on it. Having written software for both the PC and the Mac I
have to say that I consider Microsoft's technical information to be of a
superior quality to that offered by Apple!
Chris
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott, Warrington, UK | Author of SkyMap v2 shareware |
| ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk | astronomy program for Windows. |
| For more info, see http://www.winternet.com/~jasc/skymap.html |
| Author member of Association of Shareware Professionals (ASP) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed McCreary
You can't use the Microsoft Foundation Class library to write a word
processor or spreadsheet.
This is false, there's nothing in the my license agreement that says
anything close to this.
Michael Guzzo
>
> : msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael Guzzo) writes:
>
>: >Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
>: >to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>
--
Michael Guzzo My Macintosh is certified
msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov virus...er, Microsoft free
>I thought there was this restriction:
>
>You can't use the Microsoft Foundation Class library to write a word
>processor or spreadsheet.
>
>Tom Andersen
I've been accused by some of spreading FUD about Microsoft development licenses.
Does anyone have the license agreement concering the MFC?
Chris Marriott
i...@tanagra.demon.co.uk "Ian Chard" writes:
>ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:
>
>>I must disagree. Microsoft's "developer network" (MSDN) program gets you
>>EVERYTHING you need as a developer for a very modest price. Most valuable
>>of all is the "Developer's Library" - a CD-ROM with 120,000+ pages of
>>information on it. Having written software for both the PC and the Mac I
>>have to say that I consider Microsoft's technical information to be of a
>>superior quality to that offered by Apple!
>
>I completely agree about the Development Library, it is an invaluable
>resource. However, I do think there is one glaring omission from the
>MSDNL2 package, and that's a compiler. Without that, you can't develop
>a thing. I've never really understood why Microsoft don't offer a third
>level of membership which includes a Visual C++ subscription.
I would suggest that it's because had they done so they could quite
justifyably have been accused of "cornering the market". As it is, one is
free to purchase compilers from Microsoft, Borland, Watcom, Symantek,
etc - a much "healthier" position for developers!
Paul Rhodes
>In article <3jkclq$f...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> tand...@uoguelph.ca (Tom
>Andersen) writes:
> You can't use the Microsoft Foundation Class library to write a word
> processor or spreadsheet.
>This is false, there's nothing in the my license agreement that says
>anything close to this.
I can't find any reference to this either. However, there _is_ a
similar restriction on the runtime program in the Access Developers' Toolkit,
in order to prevent somebody from simply writing a replacement front-end and
selling it as a cut-price version of Access. This makes sense, as the runtime
version is virtually full Access with the design views hidden.
______________________________________________________paul....@liffe.com
Tim Smith
>And were the Pentium fp bug really big? I mean, IBM's claim that the
>fp bug would affect the average spreadsheet user every 2 months or so, *is*
>a lie! The average user will most likely spend time with 2 decimal points
>and the bug affects the 4th decimal at worst!!!
Wrong! It has nothing to do with the number of places after the decimal
mark. It has to do with the number of significant figures.
--Tim Smith
muza...@smixedsignal.com
In article <3jf83m$k...@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov>, <msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov>
writes:
> >resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger.
Course,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next
Photoshop.
> >Assuming, of course you've the proper tools (computer, complier, etc).
>
>
> Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development tools
> to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>
> --
> Michael Guzzo My Macintosh is certified
> msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov virus...er, Microsoft free
I really wonder what kind of purpose do you serve by spreading such
baseless FUD. Have you ever seen a MS language license ?
The only company who tried such a restriction was Borland and they had to
change that clause in the license so quickly that you didn't have time
to laugh at it.
Muzaffer
standard disclaimer
Jamie Siglar
al...@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Finlay) writes:
> ma...@applelink.apple.com (Michael Mace) writes:
> >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?
>
> Ok, let us assume for argument that the source files Apple commissioned from
> Canyon or derivatives of them were supplied to Microsoft.
>
> I would like to know the following before coming to a personal judgement:
>
> 1a) Was it clear to Canyon that the code being developed would belong in whole
> to Apple and that Canyon would have no rights to the code whatsoever?
Since this was contract work-for-hire, then the contractee has
exclusive rights to the code; the contractor has only archiving rights
(usually, a printout, and copies of all technical documentation). I
know; it's what I do for a living.
> 1b) If not then what rights does Canyon have to the code?
None. Unless they retained such rights (which they admit they didn't).
> I presume Canyon does have some rights to the software or otherwise why did
> Apple hire Canyon to develop the code, couldn't Apple have written it entirely
> by itself?
Not necessarily. This is contract law; unless Canyon was not paid by
Apple (Apple in breach and Canyon retains product until payment in
full), Canyon was supposed to wipe the code after final payment was
received. It's amazing to me that they didn't; my clients insist upon
it.
> This is only one step removed from the case where a programmer is required to
> sign a non-disclosure agreement with his or her employer.
I sign proprietary info NDA's for every client I have (after my lawyer
reads them, of course). They all have "sunset" clauses, varying from 1
to 5 years depending upon client and material.
> Personally such
> an agreement would be so disagreeable to me I would never do this. I expect
> to learn from my experience of programming and apply that knowledge.
A proprietary info NDA means that you can't sell one company the code,
and then sell another company the same code. I re-create engines I've
built before all the time; I do this from the technical documentation I
am legally able to retain. The engines themselves are content-driven;
the algorithm is the same but the code will vary depending upon the
specific application's needs.
> I have
> developed lots of little techniques over the years and I expect to carry
> them with me from one job to another. I can't easily pretend to myself I
> don't know something. I'm sure it can be done but I would rather not carry
> all that extra overhead when problem solving.
It's fine to re-use your intellectual knowledge (i.e., algorithm
development), it's just not legal to re-use the code you wrote for
someone else.
> If Canyon had not simply
> copied the code, but had rewritten it from scratch using the knowledge
> it gained from its partnership with Apple, then would Apple still be suing?
Doubtful; they wouldn't have standing (and the code wouldn't be
binary-identical, either), and the code wouldn't be in violation
(again, algorithm development).
> 2) If Microsoft also commisioned code from Canyon could it claim to have been
> unaware or not legally responsible for the fact that Canyon broke its agreement
> with Apple?
It was until notified by Apple. The problem came when Apple offered to
prove to Microsoft that the code was the same, if Microsoft agreed to
stop shipping the product in violation upon submission of proof.
Microsoft didn't; now they're up for a "cease-and-desist" order.
> For example, it is feasible that Canyon has exclusive or joint copyright for
> code (it being written by its staff in consultation with Apple staff as
> I understand things) and a legally binding agreement not to supply the code
> to anyone else.
>
> If Canyon breaks its agreement with Apple then that does not necessarily
> imply that Microsoft has breached copyright. Apple would only have legal
> recourse to sue Canyon for breach of contract.
They filed THAT suit in December; they asked that the current violators
of the copyright (Microsoft and Intel) cease and desist shipment of the
offending portions of their own products (replace 1.1d w/ 1.1c or
whatever). Intel laughed; Microsoft refused. They're getting what
they deserve.
> This is a major problem with our current capitalist system. For example,
> suppose I want to destroy the environment and make a quick buck for my
> Mega company. Then rather than risk the Mega company's capital, I can
> create a small legally independant subsidiary company which does all the dirty
> work and "sells" its product to the parent company. The subsidiary company
> is a "disposable" legal entity that takes legal responsibility for the outrage
> but has little in the way of assets to compensate society.
Not even remotely an analogy; this case is that a contractor violated
his contract, and in so doing cause his other clients to infringe upon
his original contractee's copyright. No parent-child relationship was
involved.
> I'm not sure if it is necessary to hide the parent/child company relationship
> but clearly that is easy to do if necessary, especially when multinational
> companies are involved.
>
> --
> ,-------Alan Finlay, email: al...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au, phone: (03)565-5225.
> | World Wide Web URL: http://www.cs.monash.edu.au:80/~alanf/
> `-------Computer Science Dept., Monash University, CLAYTON 3168, Australia.
> ========== FRAUDULANT THIRD WORLD DEBT SHOULD BE WRITTEN OFF ========
Obviously, you'll need to get legal help before you start working as a
contractor...
--jas
>>-- Cross-Platform Multimedia consulting and Authoring. --<<
>>-- Not even close to being affiliated with any corporate entities. --<<
Larry Hastings
>Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
>programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
>paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
>foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
>Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
>resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger. Course,
>Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next
>Photoshop.
Rather than making things up, please find out actual facts before you post.
You're welcome to your opinions, but your posting above is a straw man
argument.
Microsoft's manuals are generally distributed in online form because
it's so much cheaper--not only for Microsoft, but for the consumer. A
full paper manual set for Win32 costs on the order of $350; I can get
the compiler, with all those manuals and some extras, for about the same.
Microsoft's Developer Network (level 1) distributes a CD each quarter
containing nearly all existing Windows documentation, including Win16,
Win32, DDKs, MFC, tutorials like Petzold and "Advanced Windows NT", and
a lot more. It also includes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of sample
programs with source code and documentation. The cost? $150 per year
gets you 4 quarterly updates.
To write the next Word6 challenger or the next Photoshop, all you really
need is a compiler and MSDN level 1. Of course, since there are _so_many_
resources available to Windows programmers these days, you'd probably
pick up some extras; but I don't know if you actually _could_ spend $5k
without heaps of redundancy.
--
larry hastings, the galactic funkster, funk...@hyperion.com
"A boy has fed a fish too much? We will come at once!"
<a href="http://www.hyperion.com/~funkster">My WWW homepage</a>
muza...@smixedsignal.com
In article <3jhf8u$e...@news2.delphi.com>, <THUND...@news.delphi.com> writes:
> e...@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>
> >In article <3jf83m$k...@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov> msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov
(Michael Guzzo) writes:
>
> > Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development
tools
> > to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>
> >I've never heard that. In fact, they'd probably get put down hard if they
> >tried something like it.
>
> Well, it's true, to some extent. I believe it applies mainly to Visual
> C++.
> Chris Thomas, thund...@delphi.com, logic analysis paralysis
I am really curious how you get such ridiculous beliefs. I just read the
VC++ 2.0 license agreement. There is absolutely no restriction on what you
can do with the code you produce with the compiler (IM legally
non-trained O, of course).
If you have any proof to the contrary, please present it. But don't have
baseless beliefs.
Muzaffer
standard disclaimer
Tim Smith
>If Canyon breaks its agreement with Apple then that does not necessarily
>imply that Microsoft has breached copyright. Apple would only have legal
>recourse to sue Canyon for breach of contract.
[This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I have not specifically
researched the issues covered in this post.]
That's not correct. If Microsoft copied or distributed code that Apple
owns the copyright to, without Apple's permission, Apple can sue them
and win. It does not matter if Microsoft knew that they were violating
copyright. In fact, if Canyon assured Microsoft that Canyon owned the
code and gave permission for the copying, and Microsoft had every reason
in the world to believe Canyon, Microsoft is still liable to Apple.
Microsoft will be able to turn around and sue Canyon for anything that
Apple wins from Microsoft, though, in that case.
Microsoft's knowledge or lack thereof is only important when it comes
to damages. In the U.S., Apple gets to chose between actual damages
and "statutory" damages. If they go for actual damages, they get
Microsoft's profits from using the code, and get compensated for
any sales they lost due to the infringement.
If they elect statutory damages, the judge decides the damages, in
the range $500-$20000. This is where Microsoft's knowledge becomes
relevant. If they are an "innocent infringer", the lower end of the
damages range drops to $200. If they are a "willful infringer", the
upper end raised to $100000.
The court can also make Microsoft pay Apple's legal costs. Whether or
not that happens might depend on whether or not Microsoft knew of the
infringement, but I don't recall.
--Tim Smith
Russ Taylor
> I believe the restriction everyone is talking about is on the Visual C++
> for Mac porting option. You can't take your windows wp or spreadsheet and
> cross compile it for the mac with VC++. (The porting option is a $2000
> package that lets win apps be recompiled for the Mac. Translates Win API.
> Bloated code. Dont bother trying to sell it commercially because it will
> look just like a Win app and no-one will buy it...)
Not only that, it'll run as slow as a win app *blech*
> ma...@richmond.infi.net
--
"Why do little blue midgets keep beating me with fish?" -- the Tick
Mike Swaim
: Back to Intel: Intel covering up the Pentium bug? If I as a software
: developer find a bug that I'm responsible for, then the first thing I do
: is start fixing it. I do not inform the customer if I think the bug won't
: kill anyone. Or do you guys think I should spend time constructing a
: nice-looking newsletter saying "Do not use my software, because I found
: a bug!"? -nah...
When Intel found bugs in the '386 and '486 processors, they told their
customers. Also, while the Pentium bug may not have killed someone, it
has seriously inconvenienced some people. I remember a grad student
posting several months ago that he probably wouldn't have his thesis
ready on time, because he had to redo months of calculations, because he
had verified that the fdiv bug had affected at least some of his
calculations. (Remember, a lot of numerical algorithms are recursive,
magnifying error.) I'm sure that a lot of other scientists were similarly
affected.
If your software has a bug that can seriously screw customers, then you
need to tell them about it. It's always better to have the vendor warn
his customers about possible problems than to have someone else say that
your software's bogus.
--
Mike "Agent of Chaos" Swaim | sw...@phoenix.net | disclamer: I lie.
Tom Andersen
Distribution:
You can't use the Microsoft Foundation Class library to write a word
processor or spreadsheet.
Tom Andersen
Ian Kemmish
>developer find a bug that I'm responsible for, then the first thing I do
>is start fixing it. I do not inform the customer if I think the bug won't
>kill anyone. Or do you guys think I should spend time constructing a
>nice-looking newsletter saying "Do not use my software, because I found
>a bug!"? -nah...
If proper procedures are in place for handling this (and if
they're not, it's either your failure or a management failure,
depending on the size of the company), then reporting the problem
to those who are affected by it (which includes your manager,
if you have one, and your marketing people, if you have them)
should take around 30 seconds. So you seem to regard walking
to the coffee machines as a higher priority than giving people
important information which affects them:-)
>
>DISCLAIMER: uhm, the reference to bugs in my software was purely
>hypothetical or something. Honest.
But of course. Only the best admit to producing bugs, and frame
them on the wall for all to see:-)
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ
i...@eeyore.dircon.co.uk Tel: +44 767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steven Georg Goodridge
In article <794692...@chrism.demon.co.uk>, ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
> From: ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
> Path: taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!chrism.demon.co.uk!chris
> Subject: Re: Apple responds to Intel & Microsoft QT allegations
> References: <1995Mar...@wittenberg.edu> <794521...@chrism.demon.co.uk> <D54EB...@tanagra.demon.co.uk>
> Organization: None
> Reply-To: ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk
> X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
> Lines: 33
> X-Posting-Host: chrism.demon.co.uk
> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 19:49:31 +0000
> Message-ID: <794692...@chrism.demon.co.uk>
> Sender: use...@demon.co.uk
> Xref: taco.cc.ncsu.edu comp.sys.mac.advocacy:44051 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:61338 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.multimedia:2831 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc:60406
>
>
> >ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:
> >
> >>I must disagree. Microsoft's "developer network" (MSDN) program gets you
> >>EVERYTHING you need as a developer for a very modest price. Most valuable
> >>of all is the "Developer's Library" - a CD-ROM with 120,000+ pages of
> >>information on it. Having written software for both the PC and the Mac I
> >>have to say that I consider Microsoft's technical information to be of a
> >>superior quality to that offered by Apple!
How much does it cost? I enrolled in a similar program with IBM's
Developer's Connection for OS/2 (1-800-6DEVCON). It cost $200 and
included everything I needed to do multimedia and video capture
and playback in my programs. The CD's arrived the day after I ordered
them.
Here was my total bill:
OS/2 Warp $ 69
C++ First Step $ 89
DEVCON CD's $200 (actually redundant since C++ has MMPM/2 toolkit)
QuickVIA video
capture card $250
----------------------
Total $608
I am interested in trying to do the same thing under NT or Windows 95.
What tools do I need to write multimedia programs that also capture
video, and how much would it cost? I am starting at ground zero here -
I don't even have any flavor of Windows yet. Cost is important since I have
a tight research budget.
Steve Goodridge,
NCSU
Tom Krotchko
>>Doesn't Microsoft prohibit devlopers from using Microsoft development
>>tools to produce applications that would compete with Word or Excel?
>
>I believe you are thinking of Borland's gaffe.
My licensing stuff is in the trash somewhere, but don't Borland C++
and VC++ prohibit you from using their compiler to make a compiler?
--
Tom Krotchko
<to...@access.digex.net>
Mark Eaton
(Paul Rhodes) wrote:
I believe the restriction everyone is talking about is on the Visual C++
for Mac porting option. You can't take your windows wp or spreadsheet and
cross compile it for the mac with VC++. (The porting option is a $2000
package that lets win apps be recompiled for the Mac. Translates Win API.
Bloated code. Dont bother trying to sell it commercially because it will
look just like a Win app and no-one will buy it...)
Mark
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eaton
ma...@richmond.infi.net
Alan Finlay
>Alan Finlay <al...@cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>If Canyon breaks its agreement with Apple then that does not necessarily
>>imply that Microsoft has breached copyright. Apple would only have legal
>>recourse to sue Canyon for breach of contract.
>[This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I have not specifically
> researched the issues covered in this post.]
>That's not correct. If Microsoft copied or distributed code that Apple
>owns the copyright to, without Apple's permission, Apple can sue them
>and win. It does not matter if Microsoft knew that they were violating
>copyright. In fact, if Canyon assured Microsoft that Canyon owned the
>code and gave permission for the copying, and Microsoft had every reason
>in the world to believe Canyon, Microsoft is still liable to Apple.
>Microsoft will be able to turn around and sue Canyon for anything that
>Apple wins from Microsoft, though, in that case.
You omitted my preamble which asked the question
"to what extent are we sure Apple has a copyright for the code in question"?
We know the code was written by a Canyon programming team with assistance from
Apple and for Apple. Did Canyon agree to give Apple exclusive copyright for
the code to Apple?
Derrick C. Mancini
al...@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Finlay) wrote:
> 1a) Was it clear to Canyon that the code being developed would belong in whole
> to Apple and that Canyon would have no rights to the code whatsoever?
> 1b) If not then what rights does Canyon have to the code?
a WORK FOR HIRE. It appears you don't know much about copyright laws, etc.,
but unless specifically indicated otherwise, all rights for a work for hire
belong to the contractor. Plus Apple specifically points out they made source
code from the Mac QT available for transfer of technology to the MS QT. It
is this code that is in dispute, I believe, and that Apple owned this code
even before contracting. I think much of the other code Canyon may have had
rights to, depending on the contract of course. I don't know anything about
the contract for VFW.
> I presume Canyon does have some rights to the software or otherwise why did
> Apple hire Canyon to develop the code, couldn't Apple have written it entirely
> by itself?
Because it was cheaper? Companies subcontract all the time. The product
CAN be wholly owned by the contracter if it is a work for hire.
> This is only one step removed from the case where a programmer is required to
> sign a non-disclosure agreement with his or her employer. Personally such
> an agreement would be so disagreeable to me I would never do this. I expect
> to learn from my experience of programming and apply that knowledge. I have
> developed lots of little techniques over the years and I expect to carry
> them with me from one job to another.
Well, if you REALLY plan to stay in the business, you better learn some
software and contract law, because you might find yourself sued. You cannot
always just keep the little snippets, and YES you sometimes DO have to pretend
you don't know things. That is part of the way intellectual property rights
work.
> 2) If Microsoft also commisioned code from Canyon could it claim to have been
> unaware or not legally responsible for the fact that Canyon broke its
agreement
Until informed by Apple, which they did, and when MS THEN refused to comply,
Apple sued.
> code (it being written by its staff in consultation with Apple staff as
> I understand things) and a legally binding agreement not to supply the code
> to anyone else.
>
> If Canyon breaks its agreement with Apple then that does not necessarily
> imply that Microsoft has breached copyright. Apple would only have legal
> recourse to sue Canyon for breach of contract.
NO, not after informed of Canyon wrongdoing. THEN, if MS doesn't comply
with Apple's request to stop using technology pending outcome of legal
action, Apple must sue MS in order to get a court injunction to prevent
distribution. Which is what Apple did. Can't get the injunction without
suing MS, I believe.
> This is a major problem with our current capitalist system. For example,
> suppose I want to destroy the environment and make a quick buck for my
> Mega company. Then rather than risk the Mega company's capital, I can
> create a small legally independant subsidiary company which does all the dirty
> work and "sells" its product to the parent company. The subsidiary company
> is a "disposable" legal entity that takes legal responsibility for the outrage
> but has little in the way of assets to compensate society.
No, you can't do that so easily, if people know you are doing it. It is called
conspiracy to commit fraud, and can be prosecuted on its own. Yes, lots of
people can do and get away with illegal things if people can prove it, but it
is still illegal.
--
The XRAYMAN
Robert Watkins
: You omitted my preamble which asked the question
: "to what extent are we sure Apple has a copyright for the code in question"?
: We know the code was written by a Canyon programming team with assistance from
: Apple and for Apple. Did Canyon agree to give Apple exclusive copyright for
: the code to Apple?
While obviously only Canyon, Apple, and probably the law courts can clear
this up, it is Apple's position that Canyon did in fact give exclusive
copyright to Apple (otherwise they wouldn't have a case...)
--
Robert Watkins b...@it.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Rune Moberg
i...@tanagra.demon.co.uk (Ian Chard) wrote:
> I completely agree about the Development Library, it is an invaluable
> resource. However, I do think there is one glaring omission from the
> MSDNL2 package, and that's a compiler. Without that, you can't develop
There was a command line based compiler included with the Win NT 3.1 SDK
some time ago, but with 3.5 that was omitted and developers are encouraged
to buy Visual C++ instead.
A bit sad, because I'm not a C++ programmer but would love the possibility
to play around with some small hacks after working hours. Having to buy
a whole compiler just to fool around, seems to be a bit ...expensive.
Then again, why not let people choose their own compilers?
As for myself, I'll be waiting the arrival of Delphi32 (they will start
selling the 16 bit version in a week or so here in Norway).
=======================================ftp to:==========================
-== R.Moberg, author of CD-Player Pro! = ftp.cica.indiana.edu ==-
=======================================/pub/pc/win3/sound/cdppro45.zip==
Adam Hill
With the Macintosh MFC Libraries (only for VC++2.0) you are prohibited
from making a wordprocessor or spreadsheet. In the agreement they mention
"contacting uSoft" if you are building such an application and want to
use the Mac MFC libraries to do so.
--
Adam Hill - Multimedia Programmer | OS/2 PM and Windows - C,C++
Multimedia ToolBook 3.0 | Visual Basic + Imaging Tools
ScriptX |
Chris Marriott
sggo...@eos.ncsu.edu "Steven Georg Goodridge" writes:
>How much does it cost? I enrolled in a similar program with IBM's
>Developer's Connection for OS/2 (1-800-6DEVCON). It cost $200 and
>included everything I needed to do multimedia and video capture
>and playback in my programs. The CD's arrived the day after I ordered
>them.
>
>Here was my total bill:
>OS/2 Warp $ 69
>C++ First Step $ 89
>DEVCON CD's $200 (actually redundant since C++ has MMPM/2 toolkit)
>QuickVIA video
>capture card $250
>----------------------
>Total $608
The MSDN program has two levels. Level I costs about $150 a year and
gets you the "Developer's Library" CD-ROM 4 times a year. Level II costs
$495 a year and gets you the level I stuff, plus a copy of all Microsoft's
operating systems and software development kits.
For your project, you probably only need the "Video for Windows" SDK, and
this is available FREE on the "Jumpstart" CD directly from Microsoft.
I would still recommend that you get a level I MSDN subscription,
though.
Alexander the great
> In article <alanf.7...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au>
> al...@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Finlay) writes:
>
>> ma...@applelink.apple.com (Michael Mace) writes:
>> >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?
>>
>> Ok, let us assume for argument that the source files Apple commissioned from
>> Canyon or derivatives of them were supplied to Microsoft.
>>
>> I would like to know the following before coming to a personal judgement:
>>
>> 1a) Was it clear to Canyon that the code being developed would belong in whole
>> to Apple and that Canyon would have no rights to the code whatsoever?
>
> Since this was contract work-for-hire, then the contractee has
> exclusive rights to the code; the contractor has only archiving rights
> (usually, a printout, and copies of all technical documentation). I
> know; it's what I do for a living.
Okay, however, you flipped your tags. Apple is the contractor (person intiated
and controlling the contract) and Canyon is the contractee (person being sought
and the 2nd party to the contract.) Other than that, perfect. :)
>
>> 1b) If not then what rights does Canyon have to the code?
>
> None. Unless they retained such rights (which they admit they didn't).
>
>> I presume Canyon does have some rights to the software or otherwise why did
>> Apple hire Canyon to develop the code, couldn't Apple have written it entirely
>> by itself?
>
> Not necessarily. This is contract law; unless Canyon was not paid by
> Apple (Apple in breach and Canyon retains product until payment in
> full), Canyon was supposed to wipe the code after final payment was
> received. It's amazing to me that they didn't; my clients insist upon
> it.
Perfect here. Canyon is up the creek :).
I'll point out that Apple created the algorithm, so they owned it. All Canyon
was to do is port QuickTime to Windows. Again, Canyon is up the proverbial
creek and it looks like MS and Intel will be taken with them via collusion.
Ain't intellectual laws GREAT?!!!? (This is why I love the United States!!! :)
Agreed jas :)
Adam Rybicki
thread in the *programmer* newsgroups? comp.sys.mac.advocacy and
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy should be sufficient to discuss this
never-ending story.
What do you think...?
--
Adam Rybicki | SimSoft
aryb...@netcom.com | Windows/Win32, C/C++ consulting
dpan...@sallie.wellesley.edu
>>>>>
We know the code was written by a Canyon programming team with assistance from
Apple and for Apple. Did Canyon agree to give Apple exclusive copyright for
the code to Apple?
<<<<<
Excuse me if I'm mistaken -- but this doesn't seem to be what *anyone* has
claimed. I believe that the code in question _originated_ at Apple, and
was provided to Canyon by Apple in the course of Canyon's contract project.
Not that this should make any difference whatsoever! But I'm amazed at
some of the statements made here by developers eager to leap to MS's
defence. Jeez whiz, how can you defend them continuing to use code after
they've been shown that it's someone else's copyrighted property???!!!
Doesn't seem to be any question about whose code it is.
David Pannett (dpan...@wellesley.edu)
Alexander the great
> cz...@wittenberg.edu (Alexander the great) writes:
>>Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
>>programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
>>paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
>>foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
>>Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
>>resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger. Course,
>>Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next
>>Photoshop.
Sorry, you got me on this one. the box is only 3.5 feet long.
>
> Rather than making things up, please find out actual facts before you post.
> You're welcome to your opinions, but your posting above is a straw man
> argument.
>
> Microsoft's manuals are generally distributed in online form because
> it's so much cheaper--not only for Microsoft, but for the consumer. A
> full paper manual set for Win32 costs on the order of $350; I can get
> the compiler, with all those manuals and some extras, for about the same.
> Microsoft's Developer Network (level 1) distributes a CD each quarter
> containing nearly all existing Windows documentation, including Win16,
> Win32, DDKs, MFC, tutorials like Petzold and "Advanced Windows NT", and
> a lot more. It also includes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of sample
> programs with source code and documentation. The cost? $150 per year
> gets you 4 quarterly updates.
>
> To write the next Word6 challenger or the next Photoshop, all you really
> need is a compiler and MSDN level 1. Of course, since there are _so_many_
> resources available to Windows programmers these days, you'd probably
> pick up some extras; but I don't know if you actually _could_ spend $5k
> without heaps of redundancy.
Again, my fault. I ought to have added that "If you want to write an
application that's competive with Word6 or Photoshop, you'll have to buy some
5K in extra material to obtain all the undocumented calls that MS has buried in
its OS OR know someone with that knowledge OR find the calls yourself. In
either case, Apple tends ot document the vast majority of their calls and make
it relative easy to find ones they've glossed over or simply forgot. One note
of caution, many Apple calls exist, are written up, but you are told not to use
it for a variety of reasons including its planned obsolence."
Better eh?
Terry Sikes
Rune Moberg <mobe...@oslonett.no> wrote:
>In article <D54EB...@tanagra.demon.co.uk>,
>i...@tanagra.demon.co.uk (Ian Chard) wrote:
>> I completely agree about the Development Library, it is an invaluable
>> resource. However, I do think there is one glaring omission from the
>> MSDNL2 package, and that's a compiler. Without that, you can't develop
>
>There was a command line based compiler included with the Win NT 3.1 SDK
>some time ago, but with 3.5 that was omitted and developers are encouraged
>to buy Visual C++ instead.
>
>A bit sad, because I'm not a C++ programmer but would love the possibility
>to play around with some small hacks after working hours. Having to buy
>a whole compiler just to fool around, seems to be a bit ...expensive.
>
>Then again, why not let people choose their own compilers?
>
>As for myself, I'll be waiting the arrival of Delphi32 (they will start
>selling the 16 bit version in a week or so here in Norway).
A recent version of gcc (which includes g++ the C++ compiler) is
available as part of the GNU GNAT (Ada95) port to Win NT. Sorry I
don't have a URL or FTP site handy, but if there's interest I'll post
a followup (or somebody else jump in and help out).
--
Terry Sikes | Software Developer++
tsi...@netcom.com | C++ isn't a language, its an adventure!
finger for PGP pub key | "Anyone programming in a 16-bit environment
My opinions - mine only! | isn't playing with a full DEC."
Robert Watkins
: But let's not forget about the amount of information you can get from
: Microsoft ftp site. 1500+ files and huge KB's. On the contrary, how
: many files can you find in ftp.apple.com or support.apple.com? can
: you find a System 7.5 resource kit there? You can find RK's for both
: windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.5. Anyway, what's the point of
: supporting obselete softwares or hardwares? Wouldn't that just add
: cost to new systems?
As I understand RK's, you don't need them for the Mac. SDK's can be
obtained, at cost, from both Microsoft and Apple. But, for my money, the
copies of Inside Mac volumes at ftp.support.apple.com, and the back issues
of _develop_ are the best free resources for either. Not to mention that
you can get _all_ the Inside Mac volumes for less than $100, on CD.
Kent Sandvik
(Alexander the great) wrote:
> Yes, MS has more online, however, when you want to start doing higher level
> programming for the Mac vs. Windoze, you've to consider that MS gives you a
> paltry amount of assistance in their developers pack which is 4 feet long, 1
> foot around, and contians nearly 50 disks and 3 CD ROMS and.. umm.., 2 books?
> Well, good luck, cause you're going to have to buy about 5K worth of 3rd party
> resources to get going and rerady to write the next Word 6 challenger.
Course,
> Apple's _Inside the Macintosh_ will get you ready too write the next
Photoshop.
I was always awed by the big pile of the Microsoft Network CD kit, until I
finally got my hands on those 19 CDs and realized that a huge amount of
the CDs were for either NT versions, or international versions. Those are
handy to have, but as the poster above stated later, it's quality that
matters rather than quantity.
Cheers, Kent
--
Kent Sandvik san...@apple.com Working with Multimedia stuff...
Apple Developer Technical Support. Private activities on Internet.