In a perfect world maybe....in the legal world, it's all about money.  Sure
legally you can take microsoft to court for whatever reason...but how many
times can a company afford to do that?  How many times can Microsoft afford
to do it?  Who has the advantage?

Tak that last even with Intertrust, Intertrust wants 25,000,000 for an
infringement, Microsoft is going to appeal this....in that time it takes for
the appeal to happen how much money is microsoft making?  a heck of a lot
more than the 25 million, I'll tell you that much....so it all ends up going
to be paid with money they dont even have yet, not enough to make a dent.
Why?  Because they got the money for it.

See I'm not saying the legal system is  corrupt here.  Chances are people
will win against microsoft (like intertrust did), the legal system is pretty
good as far as copyright and patents goes.  What makes the legal system
corrupt is the money.  You'll win...Microsoft will appearl, you might even
win again...but how much dammage actually occured in your company as
compared to the damage that occured at microsoft?

It's all about the point of view you take when analysing what can happen in
ratio to what will happen :-)

--
St�phane Richard

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1060883245.957247@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > That says to me "monopoly".
>
> No one disputes that MS has a monopoly. But it's not
> illegal to have a monopoly in the US. Companies which
> have a monopoly have extra regulations that they must
> follow in order to prevent them from using their status
> to avoid competition.
>