🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, huntley@gable.cs.indiana.edu ("Haydn Huntley") says:
>The reason I decided not to renew my membership is that I was turned
>off by the LPF's anti-Apple attitude.  I can understand boycotting an

  I doubt this one will ever be resolved as different people have a
different view as to what Apple is, and has been doing.  I for one very
much support the anti-Apple position that the LPF and other 'Freedom
Fighter' organizations hold.

>threatening part of the Apple vs. Microsoft/Hewlett-Packard suit been
>resolved already?  Aren't there other companies which are doing things

  Has it?  I don't see that it has.  If I read things correctly, they
'got off' because they had actually licenced the things that they were
accused of 'pirating' from Apple.  The very fact that there is
licencing involved in these issues is destructive, and I've yet to
see Apple announcing free access to the use of user interface ideas
that they claim a patent on.

>commission on software patents, and recommended that algorithm patents
>should be allowed, and enforced *world-wide*.  Isn't that pretty bad?

  It sounds like I should start reading comp.org.lpf and find out the
issues here as this does sound pretty contradictory..
-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada    | Standard Disclaimer applies.
 Freenet: aa302@freenet.carleton.ca (Faster) | Current WELMAT 'keeper of
 Home: rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca,  1:163/109   | sources.