That is one way to interpret the events. At the time, the common interpretation was that Microsoft voluntarily pumped money into Apple for multiple reasons only some being the ones that you mentioned.
They were in real fear of the government breaking them up like they did AT&T. Pumping some money into Apple was cheap insurance compared to that consequence and settled some distracting lawsuits from Apple at the same time.
These companies sue each other all the time. Sometimes it is for obvious reasons, often the suits are for obscure reasons and they are settled secretly with various licenses being traded as a result. I would not over read Apple’s suits against Microsoft. Just look at how many outstanding suits Apple has filed and has filed against them at any given moment.
In the end, ongoing suits and countersuits is just the price of doing business. Facing the Feds who want to bust you up is the real threat, pulling Apple from the brink was Microsoft’s plea for their life when facing the federal executioner.
There IS no "interpretation" about it, Doc. The three interlocking agreements settling the lawsuit between Microsoft and Apple signed the same morning make it explicit exactly what happened and who owed who what.
The spin came after the fact from a Microsoft captive press and the fact that the agreements were sealed for a period of time. There was no bailout. Apple added the money to it's cash holdings. It did not need it to meet operational obligations.