|
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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. :) |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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. |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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... |
Write Off
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
: SY00 SY99. typo.... |
Write Off
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. -- Jim Pennino |
Write Off
|
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
... And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of malicious communication against you. That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick Geenty, the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the Canary Islands. |
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
At 19:12:34 on Sun, 9 Nov 2014, gareth wrote
in : "Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message ... And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of malicious communication against you. That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick Geenty, the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the Canary Islands. And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the case for radio ham euthanasia. -- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me. Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever. |
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:51:14 +0000, Molly Mockford wrote:
And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the case for radio ham euthanasia. Wham, bam, ham spam, ma'am? |
Write Off
On 11/9/2014 12:41 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
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... Instead of speculating you could do some research. I checked for all trademarks under the name Yamaha and none of those trademarks show up. I did find 'SY' and 'TG' alone as well as 'SY/TG' and 'DX for TG'... all dead. Also, each of these were logos and not just text. -- Rick |
Write Off
wrote in message
... 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. There is no twisting involved once you revealed yourself time and again, as in the worrds of A.A.Milne, "a bear of very little brain". |
Write Off
|
Write Off
"rickman" wrote in message
... 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. The "crap" as you put it comes mainly from you two rednecks, yourself and Jim Pendulumino. I post things that are of technical interest to me in the hope of partaking in a civil and mature discussion. |
Write Off
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. |
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
Chronos wrote in
: thought Ye Olde Oak ham was edible Ha! I tried that once. I soon learned. :) |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 ================== |
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
"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. |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 |
Write Off
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 ================== |
Write Off
In message , Ian Jackson
writes In message , Lostgallifreyan writes Eternal September is a namd ? I have read in contexts of posters naming some systems with a bad hit-rate for troll sources. Yes, RIP news.demon.co.uk. ES is just fine. Freenews.netfront.net also works, as does nntp.aioe.org (although take care with their well-intentioned rules). Even though they say they don't carry binaries, ES certainly does allow access to a few binary NGs, as does freenews.netfront.net. I see it carries alt.binaries.schematics.electronic; useful if anyone wants to post antenna related diagrams and the like. 73 Brian -- Brian Howie |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3orvu$d93$1@dont-
email.me: 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. The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit from it in any way at all? If that IS so, then the patent system is violently in need of serious reform, but as far as I'm concerned it basically means one thing: I shall never release my work. If the workd will not share it, it will die with me. End of discussion. |
Write Off
|
Write Off
"rickman" wrote in message
... This thread is being overrun by the same Gareth obsessed crap But this thread was started off in that spirit! Perhaps it is you and Lostie who are polluting this NG with long-winded threads about nothing related to amateur radio or to antennae? |
Write Off
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. .. I will not release my code to the public domain unless there is a GUARANTEED way to prevent patent trolls and sharks from stealing it, a way that does not extort more money than I may ever earn before I even start to earn it! But from what you have been rabbiting on about (and polluting this NG with off topic irrelevancies) your code is trivial to a software engineer. |
Write Off
In message , rickman
writes On 11/7/2014 7:34 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Percy Picacity wrote in : There are a number of good free text group newsservers, such as Eternal September, and at least one paid-for one with a good reputation that only costs 10GBP a year (news.individual.net). So I hope we don't have to lose you. Thankyou. :) I will look into it. Two caveats though... The one free one I looked at so far isn't free if I want to post. The other is that the truly free ones may be a haunt of trolls, Eternal September is a namd I have read in contexts of posters naming some systems with a bad hit-rate for troll sources. What difference does it make if trolls use the same ISP for newsgroups that you do? You use the same roads as every bank robber, no? I think he was suggesting killfiling on all posts from Eternal Sepetember users . Otherwise that's correct, what you see on the newsgroups is independent to whom you subscribe. Brian -- Brian Howie |
PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
... Thanks Steve. I'm quite sure the v*** old c***'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 :) So what does that make you as you yourself are triumphing that you are regularly reporting me? Sauce for the goose, etc? Stupid boy. |
Write Off
On 11/10/2014 4:18 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3orvu$d93$1@dont- email.me: 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. The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit from it in any way at all? If that IS so, then the patent system is violently in need of serious reform, but as far as I'm concerned it basically means one thing: I shall never release my work. If the workd will not share it, it will die with me. End of discussion. Basically, that's it. Even if you create something, if I file for a patent first, I get the patent. Yes, the U.S. patent system is totally screwed up, and has been for years (some would even say decades). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Write Off
On 11/10/2014 5:29 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Brian Reay wrote in news:441948959437305285.373419no.sp- : If you have something to protect, seek professional advice. It is a bit of a mine field. Plus, if you work for a company, they may have something in your contract of employment which gives them a claim, or they will say it does. That could lead to a 'parting of the ways', possibly in your favour financially etc. but involve a lawyer to ensure you secure your position. I won't patent. I've been reading of the cost in the UK. (All figures are UKP) 3000 to 6000. Add 10000 give or take not very much to add US protection. That;s in the first year. You have to add about 4 grand more within a year and a half, maybe more, and that's ignoring ALL costs of actually defending a patent! Add those, the costs soar to around 150 grand. I will not release my code to the public domain unless there is a GUARANTEED way to prevent patent trolls and sharks from stealing it, a way that does not extort more money than I may ever earn before I even start to earn it! If there is no such way, then I may release code that strictly emulates an existing instrument (the Yamaha DX7) in its main funtion, and on the strength of that, I will hope to find a performer who can afford to take on the extended code privately as a performing instrument. Why is it that patents force me to seriously consider ideas of elite sponsorship that belong to the 16th century?! Has the world of ideas and the right to profit from original work really progresses so little in all those years? After all, the only way to win the game is to have already won. I'm not going to cause myself misery fighting tautologies like that. I don't think patents are what I should be asking about. The real question is: how do I defend my work from the patent system while trying to earn money from it, or share it with the world? Well, unless your code contains a "new and innovative idea", it's not patentable, anyway. You can copyright the code (it's automatically copyrighted, anyway - but you have to register that copyright in the U.S. to have any *real* protection), but not necessarily patent it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe13$n1r$1@dont-
email.me: Basically, that's it. Even if you create something, if I file for a patent first, I get the patent. Yes, the U.S. patent system is totally screwed up, and has been for years (some would even say decades). What that means a hothouse. A rainforest. Each new form only able to survicve in an exclusive location. A multiltude of privately held creations surviving mainly because no-one else knows they are there. The law of the jungle. Earth to Earth, dust to dust, even before death. No wonder the 'western world' is tanked. It's stifling its own growth and probably deserves to die. China will win, so long as it can continue to innovate. After all, it has done so for thousands of years longer than the US, the UK, and pretty much anywhere. It's communist historyu is a small abberation on that scale. Maybe the only hope of doing anythign other than returning to a mediaeval model here, is to live somewhere that has the power and disregard of 'Western' patents as China does, combined with the ability to defend itself. I'll settle for e the mediaeval model, as UK life and morals and social standards and political structure is headed back there anyway. Go with the flow, says I. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com