Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:17893 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:646 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdragon!crocus!rmpinchback From: rmpinchback@crocus.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: PK361.EXE Message-ID: <8188@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 9 Aug 88 22:22:22 GMT References: <1916@looking.UUCP> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu Reply-To: rmpinchback@crocus.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 32 In article <1916@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: ..... > >If that's what it is, then aside from the usual clause that says "PK >admits no fault or blame," PK has appeared to agree that he did infringe >on SEA. (He has actually agreed to stop the alleged infringements). > >So I find destroying all SEA programs and sending money to PKWARE a rather >unusual response to this, to say the least! >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Settling a suit has very little to due with "agreeing that he did infringe on SEA". As a commercial lawyer once told me, even when you are 100% in the right, you only have at best a 50% chance of winning the suit. That is the nasty part about using litigation to hammer your competition (though I'm NOT saying that this was SEA's motivation). It is very easy for a financially stronger company to destroy a weaker one this way... the defendant can't afford the legal costs alone, should he lose. It's a favourite trick of Intel, from what I've read about some of their legal battles. Moral of the story? Don't assume that either party was in any sense found, or admitted to, guilt, unless you have access to the judicial commentary (which probably won't say much if the american legalistic lingo does in fact mean that they settled out of court). Reid Pinchback Undergraduate, CS/C&O U. of Waterloo (the opinions here are, of course, my own, and hence are not representative of the opinions of the University, my family, or my Philodendron.)