rickman wrote in :

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


As far as I know, even in the EU it's contentious, and that to avoid
litigation entirely it is wise to establish an exemption to the DMCA as well,
via its 'interoperability clause'. This regards copyright rather than patent
though, but copyright is tough, never mind 10 years, try 150, or longer if
the inheritor chooses to legally extend it. I doubt I'll run into this issue,
especially as interoperability was the first intent of my work.

On 11/9/2014 11:05 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
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.

If you have a question about the exact nature of the trademark, go to
the USPTO and see who has a trademark on DX7. They have a search on
their web site. Not as easy to use as google, but it does work. Yamaha
has no more claim to the trademark than what is registered.

I did a quick search and found nothing. I did get hits on RX7 though,
so I was using it correctly. Looks like DX7 is not trademarked in the
US at least. You'll have to figure out how to do the search in the EU.

--

Rick

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:48:04 +0000, gareth wrote:


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.

Life was so much simpler when messages were sent wrapped around the
shafts of arrows. Exercising your right of reply might have bean tricky,
though.

rickman wrote in :

If you have a question about the exact nature of the trademark, go to
the USPTO and see who has a trademark on DX7. They have a search on
their web site. Not as easy to use as google, but it does work. Yamaha
has no more claim to the trademark than what is registered.

I did a quick search and found nothing. I did get hits on RX7 though,
so I was using it correctly. Looks like DX7 is not trademarked in the
US at least. You'll have to figure out how to do the search in the EU.


I'll give it a go. I did look at some trademark searcher recently (probaly
not a very good one), ans also drew blanks on 'DX7' possibly due to
miunderstanding how to find it. Thing is, suppose Yamaha take exception? It
may not cut much ice with them if I say I did an online trademark search
instead of asking them personally. Even if they never reply, I have a
written record of having asked.

Radiohead70 wrote in news:m3o6bo$41b$1@dont-
email.me:

Life was so much simpler when messages were sent wrapped around the
shafts of arrows. Exercising your right of reply might have bean tricky,
though.


Nice. The Spirit of Monty Python alive and well.

On 11/9/2014 11:50 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in :

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


As far as I know, even in the EU it's contentious, and that to avoid
litigation entirely it is wise to establish an exemption to the DMCA as well,
via its 'interoperability clause'. This regards copyright rather than patent
though, but copyright is tough, never mind 10 years, try 150, or longer if
the inheritor chooses to legally extend it. I doubt I'll run into this issue,
especially as interoperability was the first intent of my work.

Let us know when you have some work to protect. I get the impression
you will spend more time on protecting it than doing it.

--

Rick

rickman wrote in :

Let us know when you have some work to protect. I get the impression
you will spend more time on protecting it than doing it.


I already have the editor and librarian program complete, tested on all Win
32, short of MIDI on MW7, got to find someone with that AND a MIDI system to
fully check it out there. I think if there were problems I';d know by now,
because I know what to look for. It works on WXP exactly as on W98. VERY
minimal dependencies and no poorly established API functions either, so
likely good on Wine too.

Re the last point, I hope not! I'm making a musical instrument. I am not a
lawyer or a policeman.

rickman wrote in :

Let us know when you have some work to protect.

I should mention that as well as the editor/librarian program, I have the
engine complete except for some details of polyphonic glide modes
(portamento, glissando), and the pitch EG (which is genuinly trival, just not
very important to me), then grafting the engine (reduced form of the main
code) into the already complted program so it will operate as one instrument.
So long as I can see well enough to handle long coding sessions, that won't
take very long.

On 11/9/2014 11:57 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in :

If you have a question about the exact nature of the trademark, go to
the USPTO and see who has a trademark on DX7. They have a search on
their web site. Not as easy to use as google, but it does work. Yamaha
has no more claim to the trademark than what is registered.

I did a quick search and found nothing. I did get hits on RX7 though,
so I was using it correctly. Looks like DX7 is not trademarked in the
US at least. You'll have to figure out how to do the search in the EU.


I'll give it a go. I did look at some trademark searcher recently (probaly
not a very good one), ans also drew blanks on 'DX7' possibly due to
miunderstanding how to find it. Thing is, suppose Yamaha take exception? It
may not cut much ice with them if I say I did an online trademark search
instead of asking them personally. Even if they never reply, I have a
written record of having asked.

If they have not registered the trademark in the US they can't complain
in the US that you are violating anything. You can also search on
Yamaha and it will show all trademarks they own. But I'm sure they
don't have a trademark on DX7.

--

Rick

rickman wrote in :

If they have not registered the trademark in the US they can't complain
in the US that you are violating anything. You can also search on
Yamaha and it will show all trademarks they own. But I'm sure they
don't have a trademark on DX7.


I'm in the UK, but I'll assume it may not differ much. You may be right,
they may not keep a trademark on that name, they may have dropped it the
moment they started with SY77, TG77 and SY00, th e'second generation' FM
synths. It just seems weird to me though, because as you say, it being their
first great success in FM, they might want to keep it in case of some big
revival. So I ask them. I can think of no better course of action, other than
to bounce ideas off people whose opinions are worth hearing. I'm doing ok
here. I got more useful responses to my ideas here than any other place
I've tried. The people I know in 'real life' have not been able to suggest
anything. I've held off sounding out the people most likely to be interested
in my work so far though, because I don't want to give away too many clues to
what may be the most shark-infested water out there. Besides, I can make
my instrument even without them, what I cannot do alone is figure out the
best protection for it, and any honest professional familiar with patents and
such may be as good as I'll find short of paying a lawyer. And if I do, I
want to know what to tell them to save time...