On 2009-04-05, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>
> ____/ Sinister Midget on Sunday 05 April 2009 00:30 : \____
>
>> On 2009-04-04, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> Except, of course, for the fact that Microsoft was not the agressor.
>>> TomTom threatened Microsoft more than a year ago with software patent
>>> infringement. Microsoft was responding defensivly.
>>
>> Nice link you provided to back that claim. I suppose you have many more
>> just like it, too.
>>
>>> So why falsely claim that Microsoft was the agressor, Roy?
>>
>> Because it isn't false. Unless you can show something that backs what
>> you say happened.
>
> Big Microsoft Lies. Revisonism and all...
>
> Poor Microsoft... it HAD to attack Linux... it's the fault of Linux.
*IF* Ewik comes up with something I'm betting it will be completely
unrelated. I couldn't find a thing except for MICROS~1's suit and
TomTom's countersuit.
Not that I tried overly hard. I learned my lesson about wasting too
much time trying to find any shred of evidence that a troll might be
circumstantially right.
Maybe some evidence does exist. I'd imagine it does, in Stevie Blammer's
Phony Tales and Imaginary Defensive Maneuvers Handbook, Third Edition.
--
You will experience a strong urge to do good. But it will pass.
|
|
