Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

Reply to thread

In reply to Druck:

And who would pay for the lawyers needed for such an action?

The recent dispute between Castle and ROL probably cost both companies lots of money in legal fees and lost business -such an action as you seem to be advocating would only cost more. Can any RISC OS company afford that, particularly on the chance that they may not win?

I agree with Moss, the new Acorn may not be morally correct in what there doing but are we so sure theres anything actually illegal in their actions?

RISC OS won't survive if our only defence is slagging off any competition. What we, i.e RISC OS users and RISC OS companies, need to do is show what RISC OS is and what it can do rather than rant about some company trading on past glories.

 is a RISC OS UserCol1 on 8/9/06 9:11AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • An introduction to IP networks
    Part one of masking the 'net
     10 comments, latest by Umair on 9/9/04 10:11PM. Published: 4 Sep 2004

  • Random article

  • Select 2i3 stable release
    CDs of RISC OS 4.33 out ASAP, 32bit Shared C Library softloading now permitted
     6 comments, latest by takkaria on 21/11/02 4:17PM. Published: 20 Nov 2002

  • Useful links

    News and media:

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster


    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign

    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "It burns my eyes!"
    Page generated in 0.0584 seconds.