On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:36:54 +0000, jimp wrote:

What I expect is for him to stamp his feet and whine like a small child.

Then why the hell do it? I can assume to cause more mayhem, like some
others.



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

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

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.


Pity... I'd got round to thinking earlier today, that if I wanted only to
prevent patent, to allow anyone to profit from their own work using my work,
then I could do worse than approach the Musician's Union to fund an initial
application or otherwise establish prior art. But if I have to go all the
way, it gets expensive, and I doubt I'll find anyone to help cover me. I hope
that there are other protections, not just patents! I mean, as good as, not
as well as...

Brian Reay wrote in news:148516905437224184.905611no.sp-
:

You don't have to push him. He wants the attention and seeks out rows. You
can ignore him for
years are still he persists.

True, but the wind still blows too, and I just stay out of it if it chills
me.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nqbm$92q$1@dont-
email.me:

I think it's worth posting a link to the article to show someone not
familiar with Big G what his true colors are.

Agreed, I was just curious how he got access to people, buy Mike showed a
way. I guess in many technical circles people are more used to using real
names, and if employed in a professional capacity, also more likely to be
listed somewhere online.Of course this makes it MORE important that we all
conduct our online life the same as a 'real' one. Online life is real too,
people do get hurt just as easily through it, arguably more so, and lawmakers
are trying to catch up with that fact.

On 11/9/2014 6:14 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

What I expect is for him to stamp his feet and whine like a small child.


But why? I mean, why push him now?


You don't have to push him. He wants the attention and seeks out rows.

It takes two to tango.


You
can ignore him for
years are still he persists. He keeps his vendettas running for decades, as
he does some of his
crazy technical theories.

Or your can ignore him forever. His vendettas are only paper tigers.

--

Rick

On 11/9/2014 11:16 AM, Wymsey wrote:
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

Lol, your search link is only temporary.

--

Rick

On 11/9/2014 8:50 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

And the remedy the court will order is for you to stop. They can award
damages, but only if damages can be shown. l

It's not like this is a criminal matter.


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.

No, it only applies if you obtain the "secret" by stealing it. Trade
secret is in essence a legally supported version of an NDI.


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.

You must be in the US. Reverse engineering is legal and can not be
restricted by contract in the EU and other places.


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.

BS. It has nothing to do with "being patented". The point is that it
establishes without question the date of prior art. It is a document
registered with the USPTO so if a patent is issued without regard to
this prior art the USPTO has egg all over their face.


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.

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

--

Rick

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
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.

Every time that you are challenged to give the date of the alleged email,
you run away, for, with the date, it can then be correlated against your
gratuitously unpleasant posts that gave rise to the concern that the role
model
that you present would be a danger to young people were you to have contact
with
them; behaviour which continues to this day, it would seem.

Why is it that you find no fault with your use of the Internet to post
grossly
offensive messages but object when the Internet is used as a defence
against you and to assert the right of reply?

I have never originated anything malicious but the nature of your
contributions
suggests that it is very much your own modus operandi, in respect of which,
I am about to draw the attention of the police in the Canary Islands to some
of your grossly offensive posts from there recently.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
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 never had a disagreement with him, his behaviour was a one-sided effluent
of grossly offensive remarks directed at me; remarks that raised concern
that he would be dangerous as a role model to young people, a concern that
continues to this day from his nasty posts to usenet.

He is a hypocrite if he thinks that he can use the Internet to make grossly
offensive remarks and not then expect the Internet to be used to
assert a reply.

"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
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.

Richard Fuller W177 as a direct result of Reay's comments about sheep
shagging