Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
From: John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:10:14 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 87r77ds77t.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20060112140655.GB4701@bordello.co-ho.net> (Richard Lyons's message of "Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:06:55 +0000")
References: <[🔎] W4301732033144151137043703@webmail2> <[🔎] 200601120106.45607.gene.heskett@verizon.net> <[🔎] 43C5F6C0.3010400@sbcglobal.net> <[🔎] 20060112140655.GB4701@bordello.co-ho.net>

richard writes:
> Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
> more difference.

Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to
take individual actions.
-- 
John Hasler

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net>
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>

References:
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: cmetzler@speakeasy.net
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net>
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
  - From: Richard Lyons <richard@the-place.net>

Prev by Date: Re: 83 IBM P4 LAPTOPS FOR SALE OFF LEASE
Next by Date: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Previous by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Next by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread