Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (21928)	3/21/2003 2:37:11 AM
From: Scrapps	Respond to of 22053

Here is how I see it, assuming anyone cares..... The defendant should be happy it was ruled on the way it was and for the reasons the judge gave. That should make an appeal carry more weight and be heard sooner and on grounds better suited for the defendants case. This will speed it to being heard in a higher court, where any further consideration would have to be done since this is a case, if it has merit, that will have to go to the top, or near it, to find a conclusive decision. On the other hand, if the guy is selling advice that is incorrect and would cause people to file false tax returns. Then the judge is correct and will be upheld by further appeals courts hearing it. Remember, Charles Manson convinced people it was okay to break the law, and he told them how to do it and what steps to take. If memory serves me correctly, there is more to this case and there may even be a history of court rulings on it. However, it makes for good reading. It sure isn't related in anyway to the justice not allowing the media at his award reception. IMHO

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (21928)	1/20/2004 2:05:23 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22053

Oaky! NOW I'M TICKED! At MSFT...&%$ing bullies. This kid, a 17 yr. old high school student named Mike Rowe. Well, being of sharp mind, Mike Rowe names his website mikerowesoft.com. And then, low and behold, Gate's Goons at MSFT decides to sic the lawyers on him instead of shell out the $1000 Rowe asked for his domain name...instead of the insulting 10 bucks offered by MSFT's legal stiffs. Now tell me... what MSFT will pay the law firm that wrote a 25 page letter to Rowe accusing him of copyright in-$%&*ing-fringement? Maybe oodles, OR...oodles and oodles of dollars American. Can we say frivolous and walk softly Mike Rowe and carry a big click in the same sentence?