Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In article <gun0tm$hpe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Hadron <hadronquark@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
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
