It's not about legit users

[KeynoteThemePark]

If it is, why doesn't the judge simply order Adobe to hand over it's list of FreeHand license holders over to the court and you with any contact information they have on file. There is privacy, but it's about justice isn't it? Judges order infractions against privacy every day.

But what does that matter, Isn't the case about Adobe creating a monopoly with purchasing and killing off competition?
What has it got to do with how many FreeHand users have a legit copy today? In fact, one person should be enough to win.
After the actions of Adobe how many FreeHand customers (with a valid license #) are there left ? Few. Adobe has caused the low numbers. Is the judge saying Adobe's plan has been successful, there is no case because there are few (current) legitimate users. Where is the judge going with that? An excuse to find in favor of Adobe?

If the judge is making a big deal of this, then the judge does not "get it". Since the product is not supported, most users have decided not to support Adobe. We gleefully use it without purchase because Adobe has been behaving in an illegal and immoral way. My former workplace had a legit copy, that was 10 years ago.

Sorry, I can't help you out.
Money runs America. Wether this judge gets elected or appointed I have a feeling we are in trouble from your plea for help. Is the fix in?
Remember the judge who wanted to break up Microsoft, then Bush won and his DOJ decided to order a "settlement" in the case.

Where was a consumer protection branch that could have told Adobe at the time, "sure buy Macromedia, but you have to sell FreeHand". It's common sense and disgusting that did not happen. Why didn't it happen at the time, one might ask? Government abdicated it's responsibility to protect consumers and competition (capitalism) because.... Oh, I know... one more reason Bush should be in jail. But there again, the fix is in on that one.

[Emon]

Whats your source for your knowledge?