|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
That's just a different version of the US tobacco
companies'
defense, which goes something like, "you all knew smoking was
bad for
you all along and you knew we were lying about it, so
don't blame us for your
problems."
Wikipedi
a :By the mid-1950s, individuals in the United States began to
sue the companies responsible for manufacturing and marketing cigarettes for
damages related to the effects of smoking. In the forty years through 1994, over
800 private claims were brought against tobacco companies in state courts across
the country. The individuals asserted claims for negligent manufacture,
negligent advertising, fraud, and violation of various state consumer protection
statutes. The tobacco companies enjoyed great success in these lawsuits. Only
two plaintiffs ever prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on
appeal. The tobacco companies' defense, which included that
argument at least some of the time, certainly was effective!
Note that
the comment you replied to says this:What Microsoft did was wrong.
There is no question in my mind about that. It's
too bad the DoJ didn't go after
Microsoft for the MS Office Monopoly and punish
Microsoft for withholding the
namespace APIs and other antitrust things they
did. I hope you don't
think that is silly. ;)
Also don't forget that Novell legally hamstrung
themselves by suing too late to make the obvious argument against MS. Also, they
didn't file a tort or breach-of-contract case. I have sympathy for Novell being
too intimated to file, but sometimes intimidation lets people get away with
things. As it is, Novell is so legally hamstrung now that an otherwise bogus
argument may work.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
