[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mplayer, the time has come

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:21:01AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 25 February 2005 02:10 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I do. That barely scratched their "get-out-of-court-free" cash fund,
> > which they stoked up precisely so they can effectively ignore such
> > judgements; it numbers in the tens of billions in liquid capital. It
> > certainly didn't hurt their position any.
> I don't like Microsoft any more than you do, but this just pointless MS 
> bashing.

What, to point out that the courts did not impose a significant
penalty on them? That's a comment on the courts, not MS. Ordinarily
I'd say that I couldn't understand how you managed to read it to mean
precisely the opposite of what it did, but that's what law school is

> > RIAA, for one. It's often used as a form of lawyer terrorism; they
> > don't want money, they want to scare people.
> Most importantly, this is not a patent case.

Irrelevant; your implied question was "Why would a large corporation
go after an individual for significant damages?", and that's the reason.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: