I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse.
I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we would all be better off without? -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 25, 2014, at 18:47 , Larry Sheldon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize. >>> >>>> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG >>>> does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to >>>> NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread >>>> is pretty non-operational now. >>> >>> In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly >>> that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power. >> >> I answered in a private message: Microsoft. >> >> Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds. > > "OK, so you are a troll. > > Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I > can think of. > > Have you ever seen their patent collection? Can you guess at the size > of their infringement-enforcement staff? Do you have any idea how many > court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?" > > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
