...understand this!
Yes, the words are "irreparable harm", and that is for granting a preliminary injunction. That's because they NEED a preliminary injunction to avoid being irreparably harmed, you see.
"that just means that mysql is asking the Judge to order in their favor BEFORE she grants a ruling." Oh, really? Well I had NO IDEA the word 'preliminary' had anything to do with being 'before' anything, or that 'injunction' meant 'an order from the court' -- thank you SO MUCH for clearing that up!
And if what SHE said really was "You, MySQL AB, will survive if we don't stop them right away, and they, Progress Software, will not", then that only PROVES that she IS a moron -- and so are you, for listening to her even after I tell you she's wrong.
Which of these companies has only one product, and a fragile business model based on allowing that product to be used gratis in *some* circumstances? And which of these companies has lots of other products of their own to fall back on, and has only recently started to branch out into the minor activity, for this company, of extending the other company's product?
Hints: The answer to the first question is *not* Progress Software, and the answer to the second question is *not* MySQL AB.
And the questions, combined with the correct answers, are the reason why allowing GPL violations to go unchecked is IRREPARABLE HARM to companies that try to make a living by writing Open Source software.