Norbert Cartagena wrote:
>
> > Too bad the
> > current legal hassle facing MS became so narrowly
> > focused.
> >
>
> Is it just me, or does it seem like the Gov't is just
> picking the wrong battles? I mean, the Browser deal -
> I thought - paled in comparison to this (which, though
> it was a "trade secret", was actually somewhat known).
I suppose it was obvious to those using and developing alternate OS's,
but the appropriate parties weren't initially involved, as I understand
it. I think David Boises made a decision to fight one battle at a time,
and this alternate OS problem wasn't the leading complaint.
Unfortunately, BeOS must not have had the resources or the backing to
reorganize a new battle. If IBM does help bring more attention to the
use of Linux as a viable alternative (more than just a server platform)
and starts to economically benefit from it, then I wouldn't be surprised
if Red Hat, et al., and major OEM's do revisit this issue and bring it
to the attention of the Attorney's General.
-Robert
> I mean, this is akin to saying "well, we will
> purposelly make this vendor's software not run on our
> system." Wait, they're doing that with XP and
> Firewalls, arent't they? Hmm... No court in the
> country would overturn any ruling or set pusishment
> were this brought to light and focused upon.
>
> But then again, this might have a fighting chance
> after 2004 (when Open Source techs have cut deeply
> enough into the market to bring some light on this,
> like the entire "GPL Not Allwed" deal)...
>
> Norb
>
> =====
> ~ Good evening, Mr. Gates
> . . I'll be your server this evening.
> /V\
> // \\
> /( )\
> ^`~'^
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:12:27 EDT