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 for... > > 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