At 2007-02-24 21:22:21 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control?
For reference: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20041026_Ruling.pdf It makes very interesting reading. -- ams
At 2007-02-24 21:22:21 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control?
For reference: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20041026_Ruling.pdf It makes very interesting reading. -- ams