[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[seul-edu] [Fwd: BOUNCE seul-edu@seul.org: Non-member submission from [tompoe <tompoe@aether.raven.cxm>]]
- To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Subject: [seul-edu] [Fwd: BOUNCE seul-edu@seul.org: Non-member submission from [tompoe <tompoe@aether.raven.cxm>]]
- From: Douglas Loss <drloss@suscom.net>
- Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:40:41 -0400
- Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-To: seul-edu-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Delivery-Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:43:32 -0400
- Reply-To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Sender: owner-seul-edu@seul.org
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914
Apprioved: seul-passrd
From: tompoe <tompoe@aether.raven.cxm>
To: <seul-edu@seul.org>
Cc: <community_studios@lists.ibiblio.org>, <renotahoe-pm@pm.org>
Subject: Re: [seul-edu] [Fwd: Re: Request for critique of a MS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205041246360.29418-100000@mail.ifip.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0205041108220.7438-100000@aether.raven.cxm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi: Well, good points, all. There's probably a school of thought out
there, that using Microsoft's arrogance/incompetence to accomplish the
desired goal of informing the decision-makers in our education system
is just exactly the way to go. If successful in such a pursuit, that
success will carry over to our elected officials. Maybe?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/
http://renotahoe.pm.org/
On Sat, 4 May 2002 dinotrac@mail.ifip.com wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
Doug Loss As long as I have you there is just
drloss@suscom.net one other thing I'll always need--
(570) 326-3987 tremendous self control.
Ashleigh Brilliant