> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Kenneth Albanowski wrote:
> > (My rationale? The Stac vs. Microsoft decision. As I understood it, this
> > determined that Stac misappropriated Microsoft's trade secrets by reverse
> > engineering Microsoft's code. I don't understand this. Moreover, it is
> > effectively a nonsense statement, according to my understanding of the
> > definition of "trade secrets". Hence, I'm not going to trust anyone but a
> > lawyer to determine what this actually means -- if anything.)
> Small correction: STAC won over Microsoft, Microsoft had to remove
> doubledisk support, Microsoft had to pay several million US dollars in
My understanding is that there were two separate suits (one was a
countersuit?). Stac won one, Microsoft won the other.
> Of course the legal conclusion could be the same either way.
-- Kenneth Albanowski (email@example.com, CIS: 70705,126)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/