I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent choice
to do so.

Speak for youself. ...though I did note that you were going to hide
behind your "library" (fair use) rights. Don't get me wrong, I think
their desision was dumb, but it *was* their desision (fortunately
recinded, AIUI).

It now appears they did no more than (roughly) assert their
right to grant permission after it's sought, which we do not question.

It's more than that. You (and others) beleived that their rights were
limited by availability. On the contrary, their rights are limited by
their wishes. ...for whatever business reasons they seem to think is in
their interest.

No, I did not believe that. The main point that all of us were making is
that HP was doing something that did not seem to be in HP's own best
interest, whether or not they realized it.

But it seems that a large portion of copyright law has not yet dawned on
you. Laws are not like computer programs. They do not operate simply by
being written. Copyright laws are enforced by courts, largely through suits
for damages. If there is no damage, there is nothing to sue for. That is
how the concept of fair use was originally recognized, although nowadays it
is formally written into the law.

But we do argue that it would have been unreasonable,

I'm not going to talk about "unreasonable". I don't have the information.
I *do* know that it is *THEIR* choice.

Oh, my; "mean-minded"! I want you to publish your books on the internet.
To do otherwise is "mean-minded". You above all here, should understand
the importance of the copyright.

Please, please, please, go and READ A BOOK ABOUT COPYRIGHT LAW. I recommend
"The Copyright Book," by Strong, published by MIT Press.