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. I assure you that MS investors (I live in Seattle... practically every person I meet is a freakin' MS investor) cared a great deal about that litigation and would rather it not happend. > 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. But yes, RIAA is engaged in a rather effective litigation strategy that raises the cost of downloading music through fear of liability. Its how every other apsect of the civil law works, but the internet threw an interesting wrench in the works. While I happen to disagree to the RIAAs refusal to embrace alternative distribution models, I cannot fault them for their approach in defending their rights as secured by law. > We hate reading it, too. I believe this comment has already been properly responded to in an previous post by Mr. Maynard. -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
