From: "David Blair" 

Exactly. A bad remedy for a proper decision is still bad law.

The problem is not going to be solved in the manner previously chosen. The
question is, on a product you distribute freely, how do you determine
damages?


"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
news:a9jnfv85ma2fhk2q0jquebeul3pv1sc2dp{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:49:17 -0500, "David Blair"

wrote:
>
> >I'm surprised there's no comment on this good news..
>
> The appeals court's decision was expected. It became obvious early in the
trial
> that Mott was as ignorant of the issues as Jackson had been and was as
likely to
> issue dumb decisions. He did.
>
> While the decision that MS had violated its contract with Sun regarding
Java was
> reasonable, the decision in effect forcing MS to include Sun's Java in
Windows
> was extraordinary in its wrongheadedness.  Like Jackson, Mott seems to be
less
> than judicious.
>
> Gene
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4