|
Write Off
rickman wrote in :
On 11/8/2014 12:29 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: rickman wrote in : Ok. Then look around for low cost hosting. It really is not very expensive these days. I think I'm paying around $50 a year and like I said, the account is unlimited until you have bandwidth or storage that would bring down the server. They did once draw the line at a 2.5 TB map data base I was considering hosting, lol. I bet they did. :) Even Google might give the look askance. I've been reading a page on server location, and maybe it's not the issue I thought it was. On the other hand that page had nothign to say about encryption, for example a download of OpenBSD from US to US was (maybe still is) not very legal, but is safe fetched from Canada. Who was at greatest risk I don't know, but the OpenBSD people were careful to remind people of it for many years. I don't know what you are talking about. What is illegal about OpenBSD? I'm pretty sure that if you are in the US, the legality of a download has nothing to do with the location of the server. Heck, there are some acts that even if you commit them in a foreign country open you to being arrested when you return to the US (mostly sex crimes such as juvenile offenses). What I'll do is look for a UK host with direct access to the link that goes to satellite through Gonnhilly Downs in Cornwall, or the Lynx router in London, failing that I may be ok with a US server, if I can find a good UK software seller's precedent for similar use to guide me on any issues I should know about. What the heck are you planning to post that you are worried about governments? You are aware that all governments have a great many things they wish to look at on the Internet, but only a very, very tiny fraction that they feel the need to do anything about? The latter are usually things that threaten national security or are heinous crimes in virtually every country. I started responding in the other post, but it goes better here... Sorry, I'd typed US to US, meaning downloading US to UK. Which in the case of encryption a few years ago was dodgy, and advised against by the OpenBSD people who presumably had good reason at the time. May still be true now, though encryption issues got a lighter legal touch. The way things are going, that might get heavier again, so I'm being cautios about general potential for awkward legalites based on locations for code. Arguably, any closed source is to some degree with-held from public domain. My only issue really is that even if I get clearance from Yamaha to use the name DX7 or make other helpful allusins to their original instrument in my product name or any text that goes with it, there is still a risk that some patent shark will want a peice of any action. Now, if I sell from a US-based server, and they try to litigate, they may try to use a claim that I'd exported the prduct, and try to force a case to be tried on US turf. I cannot afford this. It seems safer to keep it on UK turf, that way they can only get it by choosing to import it. That is a distinction that may well make it much easier and cheaper for me to defend, not least because if I do host it in another nation, I may find a limit on protection offered to me under UK law. My logis tells me there's plenty I do not know, and it's better not to be paranoid, but my intinct tells me it's better to play safe because when doing anythign based on an originally successful commerical model, there are sharks out there who might try to exploit any development based on it. That fact alone drives all kinds of caution. |
Write Off
On 11/8/2014 2:21 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : On 11/8/2014 12:29 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: rickman wrote in : Ok. Then look around for low cost hosting. It really is not very expensive these days. I think I'm paying around $50 a year and like I said, the account is unlimited until you have bandwidth or storage that would bring down the server. They did once draw the line at a 2.5 TB map data base I was considering hosting, lol. I bet they did. :) Even Google might give the look askance. I've been reading a page on server location, and maybe it's not the issue I thought it was. On the other hand that page had nothign to say about encryption, for example a download of OpenBSD from US to US was (maybe still is) not very legal, but is safe fetched from Canada. Who was at greatest risk I don't know, but the OpenBSD people were careful to remind people of it for many years. I don't know what you are talking about. What is illegal about OpenBSD? I'm pretty sure that if you are in the US, the legality of a download has nothing to do with the location of the server. Heck, there are some acts that even if you commit them in a foreign country open you to being arrested when you return to the US (mostly sex crimes such as juvenile offenses). What I'll do is look for a UK host with direct access to the link that goes to satellite through Gonnhilly Downs in Cornwall, or the Lynx router in London, failing that I may be ok with a US server, if I can find a good UK software seller's precedent for similar use to guide me on any issues I should know about. What the heck are you planning to post that you are worried about governments? You are aware that all governments have a great many things they wish to look at on the Internet, but only a very, very tiny fraction that they feel the need to do anything about? The latter are usually things that threaten national security or are heinous crimes in virtually every country. I started responding in the other post, but it goes better here... Sorry, I'd typed US to US, meaning downloading US to UK. Which in the case of encryption a few years ago was dodgy, and advised against by the OpenBSD people who presumably had good reason at the time. May still be true now, though encryption issues got a lighter legal touch. The way things are going, that might get heavier again, so I'm being cautios about general potential for awkward legalites based on locations for code. Arguably, any closed source is to some degree with-held from public domain. How is encryption involved? Are you designing or using some state of the art encryption? My only issue really is that even if I get clearance from Yamaha to use the name DX7 or make other helpful allusins to their original instrument in my product name or any text that goes with it, there is still a risk that some patent shark will want a peice of any action. Now, if I sell from a US-based server, and they try to litigate, they may try to use a claim that I'd exported the prduct, and try to force a case to be tried on US turf. I cannot afford this. It seems safer to keep it on UK turf, that way they can only get it by choosing to import it. That is a distinction that may well make it much easier and cheaper for me to defend, not least because if I do host it in another nation, I may find a limit on protection offered to me under UK law. I'm pretty sure you are safe from patent sharks. They are looking for money and unless you have some they won't bother you a bit. Even if they do, they will have a hard time collecting anything from overseas and they know it. My logis tells me there's plenty I do not know, and it's better not to be paranoid, but my intinct tells me it's better to play safe because when doing anythign based on an originally successful commerical model, there are sharks out there who might try to exploit any development based on it. That fact alone drives all kinds of caution. 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. You can be paranoid all day long if you want. But it helps to consider the reasons for people's actions, usually profit. I seriously doubt anyone will care what you design. If you are selling things that contain technology belonging to others I don't think it will matter what country you are in or where you host your web site. -- Rick |
Write Off
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. 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. 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. |
Write Off
rickman wrote in :
On 11/8/2014 11:56 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , rickman escribió: And does that make it ok to ridicule and berate him? Yes. This is only Usenet, nobody dies. Oh, well if that is your threshold of action then nothing you describe below needs to be considered. I'll back rickman on this. Whatever happened to the doctor's rule? "First, do no harm". Just because Gareth does wrong, returning the 'favour' doesn't make anyone right. The best way to end a fight is usually to stop fighting, and trying that is the only sure way to know if that alone is enough. If people are invulnrerable to him, then that should be enough. One thing I've wondered about is how he even gets to know so much about anyone, to go on to send notices to their workplaces insinuating paedophilia and such. There are clearly parts to that story that I missed! And incidentally it's one reason I asked about Usenet hosts in a context of them aiding privacy. It seems to me that if Gareth or anyone else is truly malicious in action against anyone he thinks has slighted him, it may help to use a host that doesn't casually drop your real IP into the headers, or any other detailed identifying info you do not elect to include yourself. |
Write Off
On 11/8/2014 3:04 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : On 11/8/2014 11:56 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , rickman escribió: And does that make it ok to ridicule and berate him? Yes. This is only Usenet, nobody dies. Oh, well if that is your threshold of action then nothing you describe below needs to be considered. I'll back rickman on this. Whatever happened to the doctor's rule? "First, do no harm". Just because Gareth does wrong, returning the 'favour' doesn't make anyone right. The best way to end a fight is usually to stop fighting, and trying that is the only sure way to know if that alone is enough. If people are invulnrerable to him, then that should be enough. One thing I've wondered about is how he even gets to know so much about anyone, to go on to send notices to their workplaces insinuating paedophilia and such. There are clearly parts to that story that I missed! And incidentally it's one reason I asked about Usenet hosts in a context of them aiding privacy. It seems to me that if Gareth or anyone else is truly malicious in action against anyone he thinks has slighted him, it may help to use a host that doesn't casually drop your real IP into the headers, or any other detailed identifying info you do not elect to include yourself. He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense and pretty well ticked off the judge. -- Rick |
Write Off
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Rick |
Write Off
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. .. Just because Gareth does wrong, What is wrong with wanting a technical discussion to explore a few ideas in a mature and civil manner that lacks completely any childish and abusive outbursts? Nothing that I can see. One thing I've wondered about is how he even gets to know so much about anyone, to go on to send notices to their workplaces insinuating paedophilia and such. I have never done such a thing. It seems to me that if Gareth or anyone else is truly malicious in action against anyone he thinks has slighted him, I have never done anything malicious. |
Write Off
"rickman" wrote in message
... He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Untrue. Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense Untrue. and pretty well ticked off the judge. Untrue. |
Write Off
gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Untrue. Then why was it in the newspaper? Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense Untrue. Yes, there was a link to the newspaper article and it did sound like you were full of nonsense in court. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? and pretty well ticked off the judge. Untrue. Yes, the article sounds like you did cause the judge great irratation. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? -- Jim Pennino |
Write Off
|
Write Off
rickman wrote:
On 11/8/2014 6:49 PM, wrote: gareth wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Untrue. Then why was it in the newspaper? Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense Untrue. Yes, there was a link to the newspaper article and it did sound like you were full of nonsense in court. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? and pretty well ticked off the judge. Untrue. Yes, the article sounds like you did cause the judge great irratation. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? After all the exchanges you have had with him, what do you expect him to do? Do you really think he is going to suddenly change his tune and acknowledge all that he has done and admit that much of what he posts is nonsense? Really? What I expect is for him to stamp his feet and whine like a small child. But whatever he does, I do not expect him to ever address the accuracy of the newspaper article. -- Jim Pennino |
Write Off
On 11/8/2014 7:36 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote: On 11/8/2014 6:49 PM, wrote: gareth wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Untrue. Then why was it in the newspaper? Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense Untrue. Yes, there was a link to the newspaper article and it did sound like you were full of nonsense in court. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? and pretty well ticked off the judge. Untrue. Yes, the article sounds like you did cause the judge great irratation. Are you saying it never happened and the newspaper is lying? After all the exchanges you have had with him, what do you expect him to do? Do you really think he is going to suddenly change his tune and acknowledge all that he has done and admit that much of what he posts is nonsense? Really? What I expect is for him to stamp his feet and whine like a small child. But whatever he does, I do not expect him to ever address the accuracy of the newspaper article. Then why not just give it a rest. Everyone arguing with him and calling him names is just as bad if not worse than the crap that he does. There seem to be about half a dozen in this group who are under his spell, unable to resist his siren call. They follow his every move like a group of small children laughing at the homeless person walking down the street. You do yourself and the rest of us as much a misjustice as you do him. -- Rick |
Write Off
rickman wrote in :
He was taken to court in England and got a whack on the hand by the judge. Someone posted a link to the newspaper article about it and that makes it sound as if even in court he was full of nonsense and pretty well ticked off the judge. Yes, but he'd already been trying ti incrimnate Brian Reay by that time, which I think is how the case came about. Mike Tomlinson said he's received similar mistreatment, in each case being letters or other messages sent to their places of employment! 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 looks like a healthy sense of self-preservation did not prevail, on th eparts of maybe several people, so I have to wonder how, what went wrong, etc... |
Write Off
rickman wrote in :
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. Pretty much. :) That would work for me so I'll look into your suggestion of an initial filing. After all, my only concern is that when I write code, I want it to help protect me as I get older, paying bills or whatever, without having to worry about someone with a deliberately loose and aggressive patent aimed at stifling anyone working on the area they spuriously claim for themselves. After all, my work is writing code, not writing patents so I can sit there ready to pounce on some poor sod who is anly trying to do what I'm really trying to do. I'd heard of prior art, but wasn't sure what it took to do it. 300 bucks is still a tad steep, so are there other ways where I could do more work myself to save money? I've often wondered what exactly qualifies as adequate publication, becase I think that may be a way to do it. |
Write Off
rickman wrote in :
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. 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. They might. :) At one time it outsold the piano. No other electronic instrument (perhaps any 'serious' instrument except maybe guitar) has done that. I'll ask first though, because one thing I want to avoid is having some name beginning to get established, only to change it again. A shaky start like that can be damaging. I'm hoping that anyone working in detail in direct relation to one of their well-known products will be interesting enough to Yamaha to at least get a curious reply. If not, I'll either think of a new name, or put a prominent note on any web site to the effect that I can be contacted at if they need to talk to me, and that if they have any dispute, please do so rather than have lawyers do it for them, as I have already tried to open civilised contact with anyone who I think needs to know. I'll be polite about it, but I'll be clear that I do not want litigation battles. |
Write Off
|
Write Off
"rickman" wrote in message
... Then why not just give it a rest. Everyone arguing with him and calling him names is just as bad if not worse than the crap that he does. There seem to be about half a dozen in this group who are under his spell, unable to resist his siren call. They follow his every move like a group of small children laughing at the homeless person walking down the street. You do yourself and the rest of us as much a misjustice as you do him. WHS All that I have ever sought on Usenet amateur radio is technical discussion with mature and civil personages. Unfortunately, there are rather a lot of attention-seekers with closed minds who can only ever respond in a childish manner. Sic transit gloria Mundi |
Write Off
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... 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. He keeps his vendettas running for decades, as he does some of his crazy technical theories. Once again Brian, M3OSN, Old Chap, you only appear here to vent your spleen with gratuitous ad hominem personal remarks. Why do you behave like that? Why are you so bitter? What is it that makes you seem to be desperately unhappy? Why not contribute some valid technical material, although perhaps your ridiculous statements that Maxwell's Equations for static fields have no non-zero differentials might sully your standing to some extent. |
Write Off
On 11/9/2014 5:02 AM, 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? Some things never heal when repeatedly or constantly stressed. Any doctor will say the same. If this is mainly about what you want, for you, rather than from him, it may be better to say you want directly instead of negating all that is not it. I'll risk guessing that you've got some pain bigger than Gareth is causing, and that displacing it into a Gareth hunt isn't going to fix it. Even those he's directly hurt are going at him slower than you are. :) Maybe try giving it one good blast and letting it go entirely. There's likely no nice rational fix, other than to think that if you want the problem gone, the best shot is to unilaterally let it go and take it from there. I think it's worth posting a link to the article to show someone not familiar with Big G what his true colors are. But I think that's all that needs to be done; the article stands on its own and his attempts to discredit it only show him to be an even bigger arse. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Write Off
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 ================== |
Write Off
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. -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
Write Off
Mike Tomlinson wrote in
: 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. |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me: In general, you can *refer* to another company's trademark, but you can't *use* their trademark in a competing way (see below). That's how I understand it, but Yamaha are very particular about syntax. :) That's why I'm asking them directly, because that way I might get two things: better clarification (because their web page details use of 'YAMAHA', but not of 'DX7'), and perhaps even some slack (as written permission) regarding their usual rules, if they decide my use is not in conflict, but co- operation, which it is, being essentially a matter of interoperability. When I make my own synthesiser ideas public, beyond emulation of theirs, it will have its own name, which is already chosen, unless I think of a better one. |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me: But then again, trademarks are pretty limited. The only time a trademark becomes important is of there is a possibility of confusion between the two products. Interesting. Hard to confuse a small software with a large hardware synthesiser. :) That might help me, but I'll still wait to hear from Yamaha. |
Write Off
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:08:34 +0000, gareth wrote:
Why do you behave like that? Why are you so bitter? What is it that makes you seem to be desperately unhappy? All will be revealed in next weeks episode of Soap. Or we could just watch another channel. -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me: However, contract law can also prohibit some things; for instance, most software licenses prohibit reverse engineering. I will bo ok there. :) Not only can I not do it, I couldn't even compile, even READ, the code of Hexter, one of the few programs (apart from Native Instrument's FM7) that can be seen as a contender. I actually found Hexter's code so utterly impenetrable that I got nothing. I never even fogured out what changes and commands I'd have to use to compile it and run it!! Having already dabbled in Win32 API and C I trawled the manuals to build MIDI and audio generators, then a phase mode core, and never looked back. I was already making my own way, so I just kept going. I listened to (and examined recorded waveforms of) a Yamaha TX7, and did whatever it took to get audible convergence in more detail than most people will ever want to hear. While I was at it, I learned to do things even Yamaha had not done in the original, or even in most later variants. |
Write Off
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:31:08 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
I defer to your superior knowledge of the subject, perhaps as a result of personal experience If I had feelings I would be hurt by that comment :-) -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Write Off
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:56:30 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Yes. This is only Usenet, nobody dies. People do die as a result of personal comments made online. https://search.disconnect.me/searchT...2a2-e338-4011- a8ed-d07423e2704c -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$dii$1@dont-
email.me: Such clauses have been upheld in courts, which means the only thing you can do is a "clean room" implementation, with no access, directly or indirectly, to the original code. That's interesting. There are people who have 'decapsulated; actual ROM's, mainly for accurate gaming emulators. What's more, these are the less precise 4-operator chips used on Soundblaster card FM and such, not the 6-operator FM of the DX7. Even then, I don't want to emulate every last digital artifact, so I never took that route, or any of that info. All my enveklope generator and scaling curves are my own extensions of basic logarithmic principles, not of any procedure in any ROM. For one thing, Yamaha could not have fitted all my code in their original data spaces. :) So I'm probably clean in that respect. |
Write Off
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:36:54 +0000, jimp wrote:
What I expect is for him to stamp his feet and whine like a small child. Then why the hell do it? I can assume to cause more mayhem, like some others. -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3nrfk$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... |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
... 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. |
Write Off
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. .. Mike Tomlinson wrote in : 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. |
Write Off
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com