Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:41 UTC, submitted by WillM
Permalink for comment 205243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-21
You are completely wrong in your statement wal-mart could still be held responsible because they were infact running their business on the platform. That is why idemnification exists. You may want to brush up on your law. Think SCO, and Daimler-Chrystler
No, it is YOU who is completely wrong. You can't be held liable for using a product by someone who has used a technology in that product, which is patented by someone else.
Dunno if you've noticed, but the SCO cases are dead in the water for precisely that reason. The people who actually paid SCO for the "rights" to use Linux must be feeling pretty stupid. They certainly look it.