[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5 |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:47:57 +0200 |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> You refuse to answer this simple question? I merely want to understand
> you better...
Intellectual property is, without question, property. See Stewart v.
Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 219 (1990), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S.
986 (1984), etc. I respect your right to be stupid. 42 is the answer
to life, the universe, and everything.
regards,
alexander.
- Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, (continued)
- Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/04
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
[RFC] Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5 -> v1.6, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05