Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Sep 2009 06:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 383970
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 05/18/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-10
Oh come on, let's be fair! Even back then we *all* knew that the lawsuit was aimed solely at getting a settlement.
The reason why: it was the only thing JLG could still do for the shareholders: get them their money back.
It would make no sense continuing to sue Microsoft on end. Lawyers would be stalling the process for years just to raise cost; losing would mean no money whatsoever; a lawsuit of a "small" company like Be, Inc. could never lead to a substantial change in the conduct of Microsoft. So there was no point not settling.