[link|http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/25/78603_22OPstorinside_1.html|Flaming idiot]

I still can't tell from that document if Symantec's action has any legal ground \ufffd unless, of course, you take literally the numerous mentions of Windows NT 4.0, which was at the time the spearhead of Microsoft's strategy to enter the enterprise server market.

I haven't seen the real agreement between the two vendors, but let\ufffds assume that it contains essentially the same references to Windows NT 4.0 without ever mentioning something like "and future operating systems."

A punctilious judge could interpret that as an intent to limit the use of Veritas technology to just that version of the Microsoft OS, which would outlaw deployment in its successors, including Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Vista -- exactly what Symantec is claiming, isn't it?

"Punctilious"? Now it's "punctilious" for a judge to "take literally" the things specified in the contract? Damn, I hope judges are punctilious about shit like that.

Regardless, I hope that the litigation will end soon and that neither of the two vendors will have to carry a heavy monetary burden; that burden will almost certainly be passed on to their customers as price increases on products or services. No matter who wins the Symantec vs. Microsoft legal dispute, you and I will lose.

So if Microsoft is found to have illegally used another company's code, let's hope there's not too much of a fine, because they'll just pass it on to us anyway. Oh wait, or we could maybe buy someone else's products, because the MS products just became more expensive. You know, like if there were any actual competition. But for that to be fair, the expense they're passing on would have to be applied exclusively to the storage products at issue. Otherwise MS would be using an advantage in the desktop market to absorb losses incurred while leveraging their way into the storage market. And that would be illegal for a monopoly.