Posted by Grant Robertson on 03/31/07 22:13

In article <Xns99049067897C8jeremiahneredbojiasc@208.49.80.251>,
invalid@example.com says...
> You sound like a lawyer. The statement itself is not only prejudgmental
> but basically dishonest and unethical to boot. It seems as if obfuscation
> is your primary conduit to garner favor and/or agreement for your premises.

No. I wanted to know if HTML was patented so that is what I asked. I
didn't want everyone's opinion about what I should do about my standard.
I only wanted to know if HTML was patented. If I had explained why I
wanted to know then no one would have told me the actual information I
was seeking but would have gone off on all these darn tangents instead.

I'm not trying to garner anything other than information about whether
HTML was patented and perhaps some guidance on how to protect my
standard. Why you feel the need to attack me for simply asking a question
in such a way that I will actaully get a useable answer is beyond me.

[Back to original message]