Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle

[Sermo Malifer]

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:35:30 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "Sermo Malifer" <sermomalifer@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:grcvqf$r58$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your
>> assertions.
>>
> Of course I do.  

No you don't, as proved by your continued failure to support your 
assertions.

> TomTom paid.  

Which doesn't give you license to make up stories about why they did.

> They didn't pay just because they felt
> like paying, they paid because of the only reason that anyone would pay
> and that is because they had to pay or else suffer a worse consequence. 
> If you think that there is any other reason possible, you are free to
> mention it, but I doubt that you will/

TomTom could have settled because the cost of defending innocence is more 
than the cost of settlement, especially given they intend to rewrite 
their code not to use FAT in the future.

> 
>> You seem to like to make up stories.  That's a lot easier than getting
>> the facts, isn't it?
>>
> The facts are there for all to see. 

Not in what you post!

> TomTom paid and is changing their
> version of Linux to be non-infringing.  

No, the version of Linux isn't changing, the FAT file system is being 
eliminated.

> The losers may go into denial
> and try to fool themselves, but that is their problem.

Now that you realize you have a problem, you can work on solving it!