>>The article clearly indicates that the complaint is with the lack of ROLLOVER, not SET CENTURY. Indeed there was no ROLLOVER in vfp3.
>>
>>It's still a nuisance lawsuit, though.
>
>Buf VFP 3.0 was not declared Y2K compliant. Only VFP 5.0 was.
>

OK, I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV... but FWIW here's my US$0.02...

1. VFP has not been declared Y2K compliant, so she's got no grounds for complaint if it isn't. If it had been declared compliant & she found a bug that made it non-compliant, she might have a case.

2. VFP is first and foremost a language, and a developer's tool rather than an end-user tool. -- Even M$ positions it as such. Therefore, the onus is surely on the programmer to produce compliance. It's a bit like suing the authors (or copyright holders, or ANSI standards committee) for COBOL's failure to be Y2K compliant. Perhaps we should sue the United Nations because most human languages are not Y2K compliant -- you have to expressly state the century you're using, it's not implied..... "During the Blizzard of '93 we were snowed in for 3 days" Is that 1993, 1893?

If I was the judge, I'd toss this one out on it's ear (with punitive costs to the woman for bringing a frivolous suit). Unfortunately though I doubt if many judges are familiar with programming, databases or VFP in anything like the detail that is necessary to recognise this as stupidity (and possibly greed).

JM(NS)HO!!

Jen