rickman wrote in :

Instead of speculating you could do some research.

I did. Tonight I looked at about 780 Yamaha trademarks registered now or at
soem past time in the EU. Nothing. Even so I'm waiting for a while to see if
Yamaha reply. I want to know what they say as a basuc courtesy. If they say
nothing, I at least have it on record what I asked them, and that I tried to
contect them directly. In any dispute, that cuts a LOT of ice, as a legal
document.

Chronos wrote in
:

thought Ye Olde Oak ham was edible

Ha! I tried that once. I soon learned.

rickman wrote:
On 11/9/2014 1:45 PM, wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
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.

It amuses me to watch him twist in the wind.

Yes, you like the drama. But this is your own perversion. He doesn't
feel what you think he does. He just keeps coming back with the same
crap which you respond to with your crap and on and on and on...
neither of you understanding that you are each full of it.

And you keep on responding to everyone that responds to him with "why
are you responding".

And as far as "full of it" goes, feel free to point to any standard
text on electomagnetics that refutes anything I have said.



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/9/2014 11:39 AM, rickman wrote:
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.


Not true. The court can also award civil damages, but real and punitive,
to the plaintiff. Also, defending against such a case will be expensive.


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.


Again, not entirely correct. If the company has properly protected its
trade secrets, then documents can be considered stolen. Trade secrets
are much more than 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.


Yes, I am. And here, reverse engineering is legal - unless restricted
by contract. For instance, you will see many software licenses now
restrict reverse engineering. These have been upheld in court.


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.


In the United States, a patent is awarded to whomever successfully
patents the item first. It has nothing to do with prior art. And a
preliminary patent application is not proof.


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.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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

On 11/9/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/9/2014 1:45 PM, wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
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.

It amuses me to watch him twist in the wind.

Yes, you like the drama. But this is your own perversion. He doesn't
feel what you think he does. He just keeps coming back with the same
crap which you respond to with your crap and on and on and on...
neither of you understanding that you are each full of it.

And you keep on responding to everyone that responds to him with "why
are you responding".

And as far as "full of it" goes, feel free to point to any standard
text on electomagnetics that refutes anything I have said.

I'm talking about your reasons for continuing to debate the dim-wit. So
far I haven't seen you post much that could be refuted by "any standard
text on electomagnetics". Mostly you just rage on Gareth.

--

Rick

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

Thanks Steve. I'm quite sure the vindictive old ****'s whinge will be
treated with the respect it deserves. In the meantime I'll continue
forwarding material to my contact at Chippenham police station.
Certainly won't be losing any sleep

I have referred your communication above to Phil Connor at the
Chippenham plod pod.

On 11/9/2014 3:40 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in :

Instead of speculating you could do some research.

I did. Tonight I looked at about 780 Yamaha trademarks registered now or at
soem past time in the EU. Nothing. Even so I'm waiting for a while to see if
Yamaha reply. I want to know what they say as a basuc courtesy. If they say
nothing, I at least have it on record what I asked them, and that I tried to
contect them directly. In any dispute, that cuts a LOT of ice, as a legal
document.

This thread is being overrun by the same Gareth obsessed crap as most
threads here, so I am killing it in my reader. Feel free to start a new
thread if you wish to discuss this with me.

--

Rick

On 11/9/2014 4:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/9/2014 11:39 AM, rickman wrote:
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.


Not true. The court can also award civil damages, but real and punitive,
to the plaintiff. Also, defending against such a case will be expensive.

The court can do anything they wish, but they won't unless the
infringement was egregious and monetarily oriented.


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.


Again, not entirely correct. If the company has properly protected its
trade secrets, then documents can be considered stolen. Trade secrets
are much more than a "legally supported version of an NDI".

You haven't explained anything here, you are just saying, "no it isn't".


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.


Yes, I am. And here, reverse engineering is legal - unless restricted
by contract. For instance, you will see many software licenses now
restrict reverse engineering. These have been upheld in court.


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.


In the United States, a patent is awarded to whomever successfully
patents the item first. It has nothing to do with prior art. And a
preliminary patent application is not proof.

BS. You can't patent *anything* that has prior art, period, end of
sentence. I was told about the preliminary patent app aspect by a
patent lawyer who was giving a seminar to a group of IEEE engineers.

I'm kill-filing this thread so if you wish to continue to discuss this
with me you need to start a new thread.

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 11/9/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/9/2014 1:45 PM, wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
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.

It amuses me to watch him twist in the wind.

Yes, you like the drama. But this is your own perversion. He doesn't
feel what you think he does. He just keeps coming back with the same
crap which you respond to with your crap and on and on and on...
neither of you understanding that you are each full of it.

And you keep on responding to everyone that responds to him with "why
are you responding".

And as far as "full of it" goes, feel free to point to any standard
text on electomagnetics that refutes anything I have said.

I'm talking about your reasons for continuing to debate the dim-wit. So
far I haven't seen you post much that could be refuted by "any standard
text on electomagnetics". Mostly you just rage on Gareth.

"I haven't seen you post much that could be refuted by "any standard
text on electomagnetics""??

What would that be exactly?


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/9/2014 5:57 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/9/2014 4:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/9/2014 11:39 AM, rickman wrote:
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.


Not true. The court can also award civil damages, but real and punitive,
to the plaintiff. Also, defending against such a case will be expensive.

The court can do anything they wish, but they won't unless the
infringement was egregious and monetarily oriented.


Not in the United States. What part of "punitive damages" don't you
understand?


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.


Again, not entirely correct. If the company has properly protected its
trade secrets, then documents can be considered stolen. Trade secrets
are much more than a "legally supported version of an NDI".

You haven't explained anything here, you are just saying, "no it isn't".

I'm not going to try to explain the U.S. legal system to you. I DID
explain how U.S. law works. If you want more details, I suggest you
hire an attorney experienced in U.S. trade secrets.



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.


Yes, I am. And here, reverse engineering is legal - unless restricted
by contract. For instance, you will see many software licenses now
restrict reverse engineering. These have been upheld in court.


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.


In the United States, a patent is awarded to whomever successfully
patents the item first. It has nothing to do with prior art. And a
preliminary patent application is not proof.

BS. You can't patent *anything* that has prior art, period, end of
sentence. I was told about the preliminary patent app aspect by a
patent lawyer who was giving a seminar to a group of IEEE engineers.


Once again, you don't understand U.S. Patent law. Here, it is "first to
patent". Prior art is not considered.

I suggest you find an attorney conversant in U.S. patent law. If the
one you had claims he was, he is badly mistaken.

You forget - I live in Washington, D.C. - the attorney capital of the
world. I have several friends who are attorneys, including both patent
and trademark. These topics have been part of many a discussion.

In the United States, it is called "First Inventor to File". You can
find more information at
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp.

I'm kill-filing this thread so if you wish to continue to discuss this
with me you need to start a new thread.


Of course. You aren't interested in the facts. They might interfere
with your delusions.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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