>>You sir, have a very narrow, layman's view, of what property is. I assure you >it IS my property. And the proof is very simple, if you steal it, I can have >you arrested. Res ipsa loquitor.

I apoligize for that remark. I could have said the same thing in a nicer way.
>
>I am going to make the assumption that you do not license software of your own.

Actually I have and do, for myself and several dozen other people/corporations.

>If you did, you would not over-simplify the issue.

I'm not, you are.

>I on the other hand - do license software. I have gone through the process and undersand the legalities fo the situation.

I guarantee you that you _do not_ understand the legalities of the situation.
>
>BTW, you proof you offer is not proof. If I steal the version of Fox you have - what am I really stealing from you? The medium that software is on, the paper the docs are printed on - etc. For that, I could be arrested. Also, I could be arrested for interfering with your capacity to make use of the license. After all, if you don't have the software - you can't work with it...right? I know this is a legal interpretation of things - but nonetheless - reflects the reality of things....

John, as a lawyer you are undoubtedly a wizard programer. But you do not understand non-tangible property.

This is enough!. Let's just agree to disagree.

regards,