"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:gqukq6$gb...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack <u...@example.net> writes:
At the Software Freedom Law Center Eben Moglen should announce, "At
the S.F.L.C. propaganda is our most important product".
Only if Tom-Tom really is the loser.
But what if Tom-Tom paid Microsoft only $1.00?
What if they paid $1,000,000?
There are those that will argue that Tom-Tom paid a lot more than that.
But if that were so, then Microsoft as the alleged winner would be proud
to disclose the high amount and Tom-Tom, as the alleged loser, would be
unable to prevent that.
So it's a safe bet that Tom-Tom paid some very small amount, too small
for Microsoft to not be embarrassed if the amount were publicly known.
--
That is an inference that you would make if you disliked Microsoft, sure,
but Microsoft has not disclosed what it charges other users either.
Whatever that was, TomTom refused to accept it and chose to go to court
instead. Then they capitulated. Did they fear losing or did they decide
the price was acceptable?
Whatever they paid, they also agreed to change their GPL code to not
infringe on the FAT patents. That is an acknowledgement that they consider
the patents valid.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
