Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:what????? (Score 2, Informative) 45

by yaddayaddaslashdot (#20426109) Attached to: Eolas vs. Microsoft Lawsuit Settled and Sealed
Public companies generally are required to disclose settlement terms if they are material.

Last quarter Microsoft's gross revenues were somewhere north of $14 billion. If they paid 500 million to Eolas (and presumably it was less than that, given the verdict of $521 million and the fact of a pending reexam that might kill the patent), that's way less than 5% of their revenues for one quarter. Most securities experts would say that isn't material.

And the other terms of the agreement probably amount to saying that Microsoft can do what it used to do. That's not material, either.

Finally, as TFA says, Eolas is not, in fact, public, so has no public disclosure obligations.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...