[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'richard_page@dsl.pipex.com' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
Alex Macfie wrote: 
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:11, Bernard Lang wrote:

  
In any case, we do not expect much coming from a US subsidiary.
and who is controlling the Guardian anyway

    

The paper's techie section (Online) has given the anti-swpat cause
sympathetic coverage in the past. You would expect the techie section to
present the issue from a techie point of view, while someone writing for
the business section takes at face value the claims of an organization
to represent "the industry" because they don't know any better.

Alex
Just to re-state the paper is owned by The Scott Trust
http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/gmgplc/scott/scottintro/
and is very independent but not very clued up on the software  issues.

I assume the US subsidiary reference referred to EICTA

I was not very diplomatic with David Gow - suggested the article looked
like a conversation with McGann - I am definitely not good at lobbying :-(




(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)