On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:56:49 -0600 Jack Ungerleider <jack at jacku.com> wrote: > While interesting, I suspect that Microsoft will attempt to wriggle out > of > this by claiming that the case deals with Windows 95 & 98. They will > contend > that other versions of Windows are not covered by this case > (specifically > 2000 and XP). Or they will release just enough of the source code to > prove > their point and pull 95, 98, and ME from the market in retaliation > claiming > they can't keep selling them since the released information will be a > help to > malicious virus programmers everywhere. Result... corporate Windows > users > that had been running 9x are forced to upgrade to XP Professional (at > $200-$300 a seat) or get a visit from the BSA for using expired > licenses. I don't understand this. If you buy a licensed product, in essence don't you now own that particular copy of it and it's license? By this, I mean that you own that copy, and are free to keep and use it as long as you want. The are limits to it generally: no copying (except at times allowed to make a "backup" copy of it), no installing on more machines than licensed for. But, if it's 20 years after the company pulls the product from the market, or goes to a newer one and effectively not supporting it anymore. It's still a "licensed product" isn't it? Otherwise, look at all the companies that were running Win 3.x after it was dropped from support. Or, even more so, the older versions of applications. Confuzzled....