X-Sympa-To: patents@aful.org
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: patents@aful.org
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by perennite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0A2AE509
	for <patents@aful.org>; Fri,  4 May 2007 16:54:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>)
	id 1Hjz8V-0003t2-Fc; Fri, 04 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: "Michael S. Hart" <hart@pobox.com>
Cc: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, hart@pobox.com,
	hart@readingroo.ms, hart@readingroo.ms, A2K@lists.essential.org,
	upd-discuss@lists.essential.org, ecommerce@lists.essential.org,
	patents@aful.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705031119460.13898@pglaf.org> (message from
	Michael Hart on Thu, 3 May 2007 11:29:26 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] SCOTUS Overrules Rigid US Appeals Court Approach
 to Patentability of Combinations of Existing Elements
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References: <4636A0D4.60233491@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <E1Hj2S3-0001TN-3y@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705011941090.5223@pglaf.org> <E1HjGYG-0004eH-FR@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705020842590.17230@pglaf.org> <E1HjLTI-0002rj-EE@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021427160.17230@pglaf.org> <E1Hjblv-0002Rn-G0@fencepost.gnu.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705031119460.13898@pglaf.org>
Message-Id: <E1Hjz8V-0003t2-Fc@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    My apologies, apparently I cannot agree with you and add something to
    the conversation without you taking it as criticism.

My initial response was friendly in tone, and did not attack you.  I
said I agreed with your statement about the "very great difference"
and that this difference is the basis for my campaign against the term
"intellectual property".  It was then that you became nasty:
"Mr. Stallman is continuing his manipulative strategies..."

    > You criticized my message for not mentioning the "very great
    > difference".  I responded by acknowledging that great difference, and
    > then you were very nasty.

    I find it somewhat out of place that you think that someone using your
    very own same words should be considered "nasty,"

I quoted above your reply to my acknowledgement of the "very great
difference".  Those words do not come from me.

You ought to learn to keep better track of your own attacks.

    Then you won't mind at all if and when I point out your manipulations,

You can't "point out" what isn't there -- you can only fabricate it.

