Xref: utzoo comp.misc:12827 comp.dcom.modems:10179 misc.legal:26566
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!siemens!pollux!fwb
From: fwb@pollux.tmc.edu (Fred Brehm)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Message from Richard Stallman re: Hayes lawsuit, Patent Office RFC.
Message-ID: <62464@siemens.siemens.com>
Date: 4 Jun 91 14:37:51 GMT
References: <PHR.91Jun4024144@lightning.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@siemens.siemens.com
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Siemens Corporate Research
Lines: 17

[The news server claimed not to accept my previous reply because we don't get
gnu.misc.discuss. Please accept my appologies if this gets posted twice.]

>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>
>    Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its
>    owners to preserve its legal rights.
>...
>I think I can pinpoint the fallacy.  The unstated premise in this
>argument is that the "duty" to the owners is absolute and completely
>overrides any other possible duties that an organization might have.

Wow! You sure interpreted the quoted statement in an extreme way. That
statement said nothing about balancing that duty with other duties.
-- 
Frederic W. Brehm	Siemens Corporate Research	Princeton, NJ
fwb@demon.siemens.com	-or-	...!princeton!siemens!demon!fwb