Apple Lawsuit Regarding Microsoft Video For Windows: Q & A 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 Microsoft(R) Video For Windows(R) 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 Apple(R) QuickTime(TM) 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 Windows(R) 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 CompuServe(R) 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 Macintosh(R) 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 mmdinfo@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.