On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: > "Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: [...] >> All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the >> settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be >> speculated. >> > YOU can say that, but what would a jury say? There are a bunch of > companies licensing the FAT system already and here is a company who > wanted to fight originally who surrendered quickly. And you want to > bank on the infinitessimal probability that it was all a mistake?
Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
