>I didn't see anything in the linked document saying the transfer of $150M pictured in Time Magazine was quid pro quo settlement
That part was in court documents from DOJ probing Microsoft:
> handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million
"handwritten note by Apple's CFO" uncovered in 1998 pretrial discovery
So the handwritten note literally said $150M? Did it specifically state August 1997? Did it discuss the amount of equity in Apple that MSFT would be getting and the terms for triggering redemption, conversion or repayment of the loan? No? Okay.
Huge tech frenemies like MSFT and Apple tend to have one or more lawsuits between them at any given time and that doesn't stop them doing other cooperative deals and transactions. If Steve said to Bill "Hey, I need you to invest in Apple or we're not gonna survive. I'm gonna launch these awesome candy colored Macs and you'll make a shit ton of money. Oh, and BTW, it might also be a good look for you to still have Apple around if that DOJ investigation turns into an anti-trust suit" and then Bill said "Okay Steve, I'll do it but I want a good chunk of equity so let's make it a loan secured by equity in the form of convertible note... oh, and if there's any other legal spats going on between us, let's bundle settling those in too." That would be completely normal and unsurprising. I'd be more surprised if an "all outstanding disputes" clause wasn't included.
The transaction was still reflected in their respective audited financials as a LOAN. If the loan T & Cs also included settling any existing lawsuits AND Steve washing Bill's car every other Saturday - that doesn't make it not a LOAN. It's just routine everyday business between two huge companies. Of course the loan had lots of other provisions and conditions and since Apple was near death, any other terms would have been highly favorable to MSFT. However, the existence or favorability of any such conditions have nothing to do with my point - which was about the Amiga computer not surviving the tectonic industry-wide apocalypse of the 90s no matter what Commodore did. The well-documented fact Apple barely survived the 90s and was close to bankruptcy, surviving only by extraordinary external intervention, was only a minor tangential aside. It's irrelevant to the point I was making what that extraordinary external intervention involved other than it being extraordinary. All that matters is that Apple's near-death survival was definitely NOT a plan Commodore could also have used to keep the Amiga platform alive to see Jan 1, 2000. I'm quite done with this off-topic digression and won't be responding further.
And may Gail Wellington rest in peace. Every time I met her back in the day, she was a pleasure to be around and nothing but helpful and kind.
That part was in court documents from DOJ probing Microsoft:
> handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million
"handwritten note by Apple's CFO" uncovered in 1998 pretrial discovery