On Friday 03 November 2006 23:45, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 14:38, Anders Johansson wrote:
Given that my response was to a mail from you where you talked expertely about things about which you know less than nothing
... look puppy,
I was arguing against the evils of software patent law before you were a gleam in your pappy's eye...
My age? You now know how old I am? heh
so you don't think I know what I'm talking about...
I know you don't know what you're talking about, because you're talking about an agreement that hasn't been made fully public, and you're talking as if you've read it.
fine... print out the thread(s) save them for, oh 1.5 years, and then reread them... after the dust settles we'll just see who knew what they were talking about.
In the mean time... take a look at history... when has cross-licensing ever been a good thing for anyone except the patent shark?
*NEVER*
So it's probably good then that this deal wasn't a cross licensing agreement