X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <cgcenet@tiscali.co.uk>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D7F44873
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  8 Jul 2003 12:37:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [212.74.114.6] (helo=mk-cpfrontend.uk.tiscali.com)
	by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
	id 19ZpkD-000LHM-9P
	for patents@aful.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:30:45 +0100
Received: from [212.190.72.21] by mk-cpfrontend.uk.tiscali.com with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:26:43 +0100
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:26:43 +0200
Message-ID: <3ED7665700049320@mk-cpfrontend-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com>
In-Reply-To:  <3F09FA26.50802@ucl.ac.uk>
From: "Alex Macfie" <cgcenet@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [Patents] VNU: European software patents row continues
Reply-To: alex@cgce.net
To: patents@aful.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Validation-by: cgcenet@tiscali.co.uk


> But several well-researched paragraphs like this one, which
> for once seems to get the
> important 'who represents what' question just right:

> "The MEPs claim to represent the interests of small software
> companies and large vendors of proprietary software such as
> Microsoft, while the FEII lobbies on behalf of engineers of
> both open source and proprietary software".

That may be down to me :) I spoke at length to the journalist by telephone
last week and emphasized quite strongly that we're not simply open-source
advocates, pointing out that I myself as a developer have so far worked
exclusively on proprietory software.





