Where you were incorrect was in your assertion that the case had not even gone to trial.
It had gone to trial, and the result was that Microsoft was no longer going to be allowed access to Java 2.x, and couldn't include it with their OS. On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:53:34PM -0500, Mike Burger wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote: > > > > > In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted > > > the earlier article) "want proof? see the Sun lawsuit". This lawsuit hasn't > > > even gone to trial yet. Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without > > > merit. The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul. > > > > I'm afraid that you're incorrect on this one. > > What part was I incorrect one? I did not say the lawsuit was without merit - > I'm simply stating that a lawsuit isn't proof until the case has been proven > in a court of law. That has not yet happened. Until it has, let's not say > we have proof. We frequently do not get the whole story, nor do we understand > the fine print and the legalities associated with them. Heck, even the GPL > has never been tested in a court of law so we don't even have proof that it's > a legally-binding contract. Now take into account that there are numerous > jurisdictions involved, and we're a far way from anybody haven proven anything. > I'm not a lawyer, you're obviously not a lawyer, and we're probably both better > off :-) > > _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
