Re: [seul-edu] [Fwd: Re: Request for critique of a MS

[<dinotrac@mail.ifip.com>]

Of course, I sent a follow-up correction.  It's Rule 11!  The brain 
gets bad as one gets older.

You can't really provoke a Rule 11 violation.  You have to count on 
the arrogance/incompetence of the other side.  Also, courts are 
reluctant to grant Rule 11 damages.  I'm lucky enough to be in the 7th 
circuit, where they a) have some of the very best judges in the 
Federal Judiciary, and b) take Rule 11 seriously.

The thorny part is that you satisfy Rule 11 requirements if your 
argument is a reasonable extension of existing law, and that gives 
lots of room for lawyers to wiggle.  Not infinite room, but room.  I 
managed to win Rule 133 (or was that 139) damages at the Illinois 
state level once, but such a victory is even rarer in the state court 
than the Federal.

That said, the real problem is that Microsoft's lawyers would never be
stupid enough to actually prosecute on the basis of removing the
preinstalled OS.  It's comforting sometimes to think that Microsofties 
are stupid, but they're not.  Vicious, yes.  Stupid, no.

Dean