Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.

message: Could someone look up a source for the estimated payout? --Canageek 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, we could do with quite a few references for this, I think. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souce for estimated payout 

message: The original version of the page says they settled in April. This was changed to "immediately", suggesting it was in February. Do we have an exact source?
Cheers,
Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settled when? 

message: I simply reworded one sentence to make it clear that Microsoft paid Lindows to become Linspire.  When I read the first version, it seemed as if Lindows was out $24 million in addition to giving up their name.  
I made the same changes on the Linspire page, which is where I first became confused.  The two pages had almost identical sentences on the matter.
I did check a couple of the links on the "Microsoft vs. Lindows" page to verify who paid who, but didn't read deep enough to note other details.  
I'm not sure when the settlement occured, or even the exact amount; what was important to me was making it clear that Microsoft paid a large sum to settle the dispute, not Lindows.
The wording at this time, on both the "Microsoft vs. Lindows" and "Linspire" pages, seems easy to understand and makes the outcome clear.
Thanks for your concern,
Gotaug 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I just didn't understand why you removed the explicit date. But as you say, Mmmbeer looked it up and even added a reference, so all is good. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original text was confusing about who paid who... 

message: I believe that this page gives very little support to what Windows had against Lindows and even remarks with "for a case that they brought" in a sort of mocking way to Windows.  Also, the references guide to no articles that are in favor of Windows.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.230.148 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The article is biased against Microsoft. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051201085714/http://www.gigalaw.com:80/articles/2002-all/isenberg-2002-04-all.html to http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg-2002-04-all.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060712215440/http://www.microsoft.com:80/presspass/press/2004/jul04/07-19LindowsPR.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jul04/07-19lindowspr.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified