Article View: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Article #55Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications
From: F0O
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 12:42
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 12:42
19 lines
1233 bytes
1233 bytes
In article <thompson.713038566@daphne.socsci.umn.edu>,
thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) says:
>jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>>For example, I have no use for the 123 menu structure and have deleted the
>>Q1 and 123 menu files to save space. Does this mean I'll see no problem or
>>is Lotus after the whole programme?
[some stuff deleted]
>A Borland rep was quoted as saying something like "the only change in
>our product is deletion of an obsolete piece of technology used by
>fewer than 10% of established customers" (or words to that effect).
I always get a kick out of speeches like this. If this is true,
then why didn't Borland just drop it in the first place and save all
those court charges?
[Tim]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<92219.084255F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!f0oReferences:
<1992Aug5.115137.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> <thompson.713038566@daphne.socsci.umn.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!f0o Organization: Penn State University Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 08:42:55 EDT From: <F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> Message-ID: <92219.084255F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets Subject: Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications References: <1992Aug5.115137.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> <thompson.713038566@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> Lines: 19