Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On May 16, 3:20 pm, Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_pub...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > In article <gun0tm$hp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Wrong as usual. ECMA and ISO only require RAND, but Microsoft, Intel,
>> >> > and HP (the submitters) went farther than the minimal requirement and
>> >> > choose to go both RAND *and* royalty-free.
>>
>> >> Is this Mart trying to promote himself to a higher position than WronG,
>> >> Willy and High Plains Hypocrite in the "dumbest advocate" table? It sure
>> >> seems that way.
>>
>> > It seems so--he has their habit of trying to argue on topics for which
>> > he has not done even a basic bit of research first.
>>
>> Strange.
>>
>> I refer to a definite source, the patent list that's part of ECMA-334,
>> and you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your
>> assertions.
>>
>> And *I* am the one not doing research?
>>
>> You really are a piece of work, aren't you, Timmy?
>>
>> Mart
>>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html
>
> Jim Miller is one of the inventors listed on the patents in question.
>
I'm very sorry Tom, but that link proves jack shit.
Tom says that in order to compy with ECMA, they provided a royalty-free
RAND license. Yet the official patent statement submitted by Microsoft
has dropped the royalty-free.
Jim can say what he wants, but it is what the Microsoft lawyers submit
as an official license that counts.
mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
