Talk:Blizzard Entertainment's victory over bnetd sealed in Appeals Court

Sorry, didn't realise I hadn't logged in before I submitted. --Dorian Gray 10:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Victory sealed?

There is one thing I don't understand here. How is Blizzard's victory "sealed" when there is still the Supreme Court to appeal? --Deprifry 13:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is unlikely to go to the US Supreme Court unless there is found to be a Constitutional issue. I don't see one here. StuRat 14:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Victory?

How can Blizzard be victorous, if the program is already out there? It is like fighting p2p software.

Sources

One should be able to find better sources at places like GrokLaw. - Nyarlathotep 13:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Contest

It looked like a good entry, so I published it with a few fixes:

• Added location categories.

• Added authors to the sources, where specified.

• Changed "cnetd" to "CnetD", the way it was shown in the sources.

• Shortened title.

Also, be aware that only sources actually used when writing the article belong under the "Sources" section. If you want to list sites for additional info, create a "See also" section and put those there. One last note, the source that misspelled their own title is somewhat suspect for reliability, if they don't catch things like that (loose=not tight, lose = not win).

StuRat 13:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I had bnetd over BnetD because I read more sources with the former than the latter, and the Wikipedia page has the article under bnetd (well, Bnetd, but with the disclaimer). --Dorian Gray 14:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The official project name is bnetd. Andrevan 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)