1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

grunch, that is all purely allegation. now seriously, we're not really going to go 400 posts of this crap from you are we?

Okay, but answer me two questions. Do you think my allegation is unlikely, and why?

[Wolf_Rider]

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first

I've already answered yours and said that I have no proof. I've already said that I made my conclusion because I believe it is the most likely and reasonable explanation. Have you been reading my posts?
If you seriously believe that it's practical to live by a theory of absolute positivism, there's no point in having arguments or opinions about anything you haven't directly experienced, so I don't see why you became involved in this argument to begin with.
So, will you answer my questions?

[AndyJWest]

...the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D

Is this where you think the issue really lies, Wolf_Rider? As far as I'm aware, the only protection against taking advantage of someone else's 'R&D' are patents (which NP doesn't have), and copyright (which is only relevant where NPs proprietry interface is concerned). Can I assume form this that provided 'other' doesn't use NPs interface, they will be in the wrong if they try to prevent this? You seem strangely reluctant to answer this...