On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 09:38 +0100, Henrik Sundberg wrote: > This was the statement: > > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > > and all assets went to Microsoft. > > And this was the question related to it: > >Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the > >Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. > > I'm sorry if this was answered by the links. I haven't seen an answer > in this thread though.
Jonathan cited personal experience. Now that might be all that he has but in the context of all the other evidence it seems plausible and personally I wouldn't want to call him a liar. If you read the background, for example, of the Ernie Ball guitar strings case and the reasons why they migrated to Linux, the evidence is that if that had been a smaller less financially secure company, the action could well have led to the company being shut down. A large multinational filing a law suite against a small company could well result in it going out of business whether or not the small company had done anything at all wrong. If MS proved their grievance, and in the Ernie Ball case it was obviously a genuine mistake, they could then claim the company's assets in compensation. If compensation > assets that gives the exact scenario Jonathan described. So I would say that if something like that happened to Jonathan or a friend or colleague of his, its entirely plausible. Why anyone would want to devote so much time to defending a criminal that is a repeated offender, shows no remorse or willingness to reform is beyond me, especially when that criminal is also the major competitor to our own project. I can only think this is deliberate mischief. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
