Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On May 16, 3:20 pm, Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_pub...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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.
>> 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
>> And *I* am the one not doing research?
>> You really are a piece of work, aren't you, Timmy?
> 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.
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.