On 11/8/2014 5:22 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/8/2014 2:52 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in :

I don't know what logis is, but I would say you *are* being paranoid.
How long ago did Yamaha stop selling the DX7 or any product that might
contain similar technology? If you are using patented technology or
otherwise are infringing the rights of others, then I can't help you.


Ok, I admit paranoia, it's something I have trouble with sometimes,
but even
so I'd rather play it safe purely because ignorance is a poor defence
in law,
criminal or civil.

I won't be infinging any rights I know of, all my code is a derivation
I made
myself by experiment, originally founded on Yamaha's expired patents.
I've
asked Yamaha about what I am allowed to do with referencing their
trademark
DX7. They may still regard that as a strict trademark, I have no way
to know
till I get their reply.


In general, you can *refer* to another company's trademark, but you
can't *use* their trademark in a competing way (see below).

The easiest way to find out about trademark is to use it and see if they
complain. All they will ask (or demand) is that you stop. In fact you
may not ever get a reply to your letter, but if they care about their
trademark they will *have* to respond to your usage because otherwise
they lose the trademark.


I would never recommend someone purposely violate the law. While they
CAN demand you stop - they also have the option of taking you to court
immediately - which is more likely if they think you are purposely
violating their trademark for your own gain.

That said, it is very seldom that a company is willing to give up a
trademark on an old product. There always want to be able to revive the
product in a new incarnation.


But then again, trademarks are pretty limited. The only time a
trademark becomes important is of there is a possibility of confusion
between the two products.

For instance, "Apple" was trademarked by both a computer company and a
record producer. Since there was no possibility of confusion between
the two companies, both trademarks were granted.


The main issue is that other people have used a similar basis for
their own
work, and if they think my methods appear to do as they did, there is
nothing
stopping them launching a legal claim as the first way I'll even know
they
care.

Why would they have any legal claim unless they had a patent? Your work
is only protected if it is patented.


Yes and no. There are other protections, such as "Trade Secrets". But
most of those don't apply if information is acquired via public
documents. However, contract law can also prohibit some things; for
instance, most software licenses prohibit reverse engineering. Such
clauses have been upheld in courts, which means the only thing you can
do is a "clean room" implementation, with no access, directly or
indirectly, to the original code.


It seems wise to try to reduce that risk. The best way is to pay for a
patent myself, openign the code to public domain but protecting right
to sell
for several years, but I won't do that unless some potential threat looks
like being even more expensive. Ideally a patent should be issued
for each
nation a product is exported and sold to. Expensive, for sure! I'm not
sure
how if at all software donloading complicates the picture, but it
seems much
safer legally to leave it so third parties have to IMport by their own
action and choice, that leaves me legally stronger, probably.

I learned an interesting trick. You don't need the actual patent unless
you want to stop others from using it. I think what you are trying to
do is to make it available to everyone, in essence to make it
unpatentable. To do that you merely need to establish prior art. A
great way to do that in the US is to file a preliminary patent
application. This only costs $300 and you don't need to follow up
unless you want the patent. But once you have filed, it establishes
prior art so that no one else can patent it... anywhere.


Also not necessarily true. A smart patent attorney can get around the
preliminary patent application if you never follow up on it. And while
patents in one country are often recognized in other countries, there is
no mandate they must be. And if you don't follow up, chances are much
higher it won't be.

You don't really need a patent in each country unless you plan to be
suing people. Having the patent in that country makes that easier. Most
countries recognize patents from other countries, so it is not really
required.


They may recognize the patents - but unless your patent is considered
valid in that country, you won't be able to sue. "Recognized" and
"valid" are not necessarily the same around the world.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

En el artículo ,
Lostgallifreyan escribió:

Mike Tomlinson said he's received
similar mistreatment, in each case being letters or other messages sent to
their places of employment!

Yes, I have the message he sent and the SMTP transaction from the mail
server logs. The IP address used to send the message tallies with the
IP address Evans was using to post to usenet at the time.

What amazes me is that Gareth had access to that
kind of detail. So there's a lot to the story that never gets told, so far as
I know. It loo

He simply googled my name. I'm listed in the staff list on my
employer's website. He was well out of order trying to involve my
employer in the matter as I post using my name using my personal email
address from my own personal account, not on behalf of my employer or
using may of my employer's facilities. That's the sort of nasty piece
of work he is.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
news
He simply googled my name. I'm listed in the staff list on my
employer's website. He was well out of order trying to involve my
employer in the matter as I post using my name using my personal email
address from my own personal account, not on behalf of my employer or
using may of my employer's facilities. That's the sort of nasty piece
of work he is.


I agree, it;s out of order unless he can substantiate a claim against you,
and wanting to get back at you for a disagreement is not enough. I mentioned
already having fallen out with a neighbour ina similar irrational situation.
The rift is healed, but I already had difficulty with trust (was one of the
weakness he tried to exploit at the time). That, combined with my later
lerning of computers, and the advice to use a 'handle' and not a real name,
was advice I took so much to heart than I still use a handle to this day. But
I always conduct online affairs as if in real life. The way I see it, there
are real people behine all those keyboards, and it's not my business to hurt
them just because I feel safer than if I was in front of them, and not my
keyboard. Anyway, the converse is also true, given that letting a conflict
go, after drawing a line whose crossing I would not accept, then standing
well back from that same line and going about my business as best I could,
worked. In real life. So I think it can work online too.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me:

In general, you can *refer* to another company's trademark, but you
can't *use* their trademark in a competing way (see below).


That's how I understand it, but Yamaha are very particular about syntax.
That's why I'm asking them directly, because that way I might get two things:
better clarification (because their web page details use of 'YAMAHA', but not
of 'DX7'), and perhaps even some slack (as written permission) regarding
their usual rules, if they decide my use is not in conflict, but co-
operation, which it is, being essentially a matter of interoperability. When
I make my own synthesiser ideas public, beyond emulation of theirs, it will
have its own name, which is already chosen, unless I think of a better one.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me:

But then again, trademarks are pretty limited. The only time a
trademark becomes important is of there is a possibility of confusion
between the two products.


Interesting. Hard to confuse a small software with a large hardware
synthesiser. That might help me, but I'll still wait to hear from Yamaha.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:08:34 +0000, gareth wrote:

Why do you behave like that?

Why are you so bitter?

What is it that makes you seem to be desperately unhappy?

All will be revealed in next weeks episode of Soap.

Or we could just watch another channel.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me:

However, contract law can also prohibit some things; for
instance, most software licenses prohibit reverse engineering.

I will bo ok there. Not only can I not do it, I couldn't even compile,
even READ, the code of Hexter, one of the few programs (apart from Native
Instrument's FM7) that can be seen as a contender. I actually found Hexter's
code so utterly impenetrable that I got nothing. I never even fogured out
what changes and commands I'd have to use to compile it and run it!! Having
already dabbled in Win32 API and C I trawled the manuals to build MIDI and
audio generators, then a phase mode core, and never looked back. I was
already making my own way, so I just kept going. I listened to (and examined
recorded waveforms of) a Yamaha TX7, and did whatever it took to get audible
convergence in more detail than most people will ever want to hear. While I
was at it, I learned to do things even Yamaha had not done in the original,
or even in most later variants.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:31:08 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

I defer to your superior knowledge of the subject, perhaps as a result
of personal experience

If I had feelings I would be hurt by that comment :-)



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:56:30 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Yes.

This is only Usenet, nobody dies.

People do die as a result of personal comments made online.

https://search.disconnect.me/searchT...2a2-e338-4011-
a8ed-d07423e2704c

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me:

Such
clauses have been upheld in courts, which means the only thing you can
do is a "clean room" implementation, with no access, directly or
indirectly, to the original code.


That's interesting. There are people who have 'decapsulated; actual ROM's,
mainly for accurate gaming emulators. What's more, these are the less precise
4-operator chips used on Soundblaster card FM and such, not the 6-operator FM
of the DX7. Even then, I don't want to emulate every last digital artifact,
so I never took that route, or any of that info. All my enveklope generator
and scaling curves are my own extensions of basic logarithmic principles, not
of any procedure in any ROM. For one thing, Yamaha could not have fitted all
my code in their original data spaces. So I'm probably clean in that
respect.