Off topic; but interesting

Chk this out;
I know it's OT-but heck; interesting read.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...sas/1161639061

hmm,
Settles;but denial of wrongdoing.
Hmm, again.
Why would a company agree to pay BIG money; if they did nothing wrong?
LOL

Jeff

Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u8Upqp39GHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Chk this out;
> I know it's OT-but heck; interesting read.
> http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...sas/1161639061
>
> hmm,
> Settles;but denial of wrongdoing.
> Hmm, again.
> Why would a company agree to pay BIG money; if they did nothing wrong?
> LOL
>
> Jeff

MAYBE - in the long run it is cheaper and easier. Just a guess.

BChat

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e76lYG49GHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u8Upqp39GHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Chk this out;
> I know it's OT-but heck; interesting read.
> http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...sas/1161639061
>
> hmm,
> Settles;but denial of wrongdoing.
> Hmm, again.
> Why would a company agree to pay BIG money; if they did nothing wrong?
> LOL
>
> Jeff

Maybe that's why they need more income from the new OS - BG took a large
part of it, and now it's losing cases around the world.

If it still couldn't learn from the lessons, I can only see more will be
followed.


"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u8Upqp39GHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Chk this out;
> I know it's OT-but heck; interesting read.
> http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...sas/1161639061
>
> hmm,
> Settles;but denial of wrongdoing.
> Hmm, again.
> Why would a company agree to pay BIG money; if they did nothing wrong?
> LOL
>
> Jeff

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:

> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
> instead of going to trial.

Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
cost less than winning the case.

However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
their way.

It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.

Richard Urban wrote:
> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
> instead of going to trial.
>

As hundreds of people have been released from Death Row due to DNA
proving them innocent, one can surmise that the legal system in the USA
isn't exactly a sure thing, even if you're innocent.

Alias

Again,
Thanks for that.
Another piece of knowledge gained,

Jeff

"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.10.24.16.39.08.265487@goawayspammers.com...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
>
>> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a
>> sentence -
>> instead of going to trial.
>
> Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
> size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
> cost less than winning the case.
>
> However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
> dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
> selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
> of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
> plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
> they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
> their way.
>
> It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
> way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
> evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
> settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
> they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
> settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
> losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
> into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
>
>

Never thought about it.

Thanks!!!

"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.10.24.16.39.08.265487@goawayspammers.com...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
>
>> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a
>> sentence -
>> instead of going to trial.
>
> Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
> size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
> cost less than winning the case.
>
> However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
> dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
> selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
> of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
> plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
> they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
> their way.
>
> It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
> way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
> evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
> settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
> they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
> settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
> losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
> into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
>
>

So the interesting question should be - how to get it on the trial?


"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.10.24.16.39.08.265487@goawayspammers.com...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
>
>> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a
>> sentence -
>> instead of going to trial.
>
> Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
> size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
> cost less than winning the case.
>
> However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
> dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
> selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
> of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
> plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
> they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
> their way.
>
> It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
> way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
> evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
> settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
> they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
> settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
> losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
> into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
>
>

Ah,
But if settling out of court doesn't establish a legal precedent; isn't
the matter still up in the air?
To be decided;eventually?
And;if out of court settlements;don't establish a precedent; couldn't
they theoretically; keep getting sued; and settling without gaining
anything?

Jeff

"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.10.24.16.39.08.265487@goawayspammers.com...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
>
>> Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a
>> sentence -
>> instead of going to trial.
>
> Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
> size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
> cost less than winning the case.
>
> However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
> dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
> selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
> of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
> plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
> they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
> their way.
>
> It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
> way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
> evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
> settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
> they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
> settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
> losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
> into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
>
>