Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it > > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? If the case were as cut&dried in the manner you claim, Sitecom would have gotten back the legal costs associated with the injunction, once the stuff would have gone through court properly. So Sitecom would have been a fool _not_ to bother _unless_ their chances in court would have been less than favorable. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
