Re: [Gaim-cabal] AOL update

[Tim R. <om...@ho...>]

Sean Egan wrote:
> AOL is not willing to do this under the rationale that they've not
> done the research into finding out everything we're currently doing.

If that's the rationale, then shouldn't they be willing to agree to a 
list of things we say we're currently doing, rather than a blanket 
statement. In other words, if they don't have to do the research, this 
rationale no longer makes sense.

Or are we worried that if we point out everything we're doing that they 
will suddenly decide that right now is a good time to sue us, using our 
own list and admissions? (Not that that should really matter since we're 
not admitting to anything illegal)

> The lawyers requested the first shot at writing the language for the
> agreement, and would write it such that if they sue us for something
> they should already know about, they will have to pay us.

What exactly does "pay us" mean? They give us $200 and then are allowed 
to sue us? Or is it more of a they sue us, we point out this agreement 
to the judge, who then throws out the lawsuit and orders them to pay us 
under the conditions of our contract?

Also, what does the "us" in all of this mean? Our cooperation? How well 
does this protect us from being sued individually (I guess that depends 
on if we ever use our oscar knowledge for nongaim related things?), and 
what about crazy patch writers, and one shot patch writers?

Of course, the other thing to keep in the back of our minds is that AOL 
is but one company, and this does nothing to protect us against Yahoo! 
or Microsoft anyway.

--Tim