I have long been curious how much of their actions (patent threats and pacts) are not just meant as market and competition control but as legalistic defensive measures against the potential of action against Microsoft for the high number of infringements they are likely guilty of.  I mean the argument that it is hard to produce software without violating patents swings both ways.  <br>
<br>While m$ has the money to pay royalties, their history would seem to indicate they have &quot;stolen&quot; both code AND software designs often in the past.  Makes me wonder if anyone has seriously looked into that (again as a purely defensive measure).<br>
<br>Dazed_75 a.k.a. Larry<br><br>