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.

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

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.

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.

On 2014-11-08 16:51:57 +0000, said:

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
As the above is just guesswork and there is no official diagnosis, at
this point we can concider him to be just a pain in the butt crank.
Perhaps if enough people pour onto him, he will take advantage of that
free health care in the UK and get himself checked out.

The advanced EM texts all describe the mechanism by which short
antennae are poor radiators.

How the once-technical Yankland descends into the abyss of
rednecked abusive ignorance!

Perhaps those legislators who tried to pass a law defining PI as
3 are now the cadre of those holding Ham licences in Yankland?

And yet again the gas bag of gas bags posts pure nonsense.

The tale of a legislature trying to pass a law to make pi 3 was
an April Fool's parody in 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

It is not surprising the gas bag believes April Fool's parodies, old
wive's tales, urban legands, and other such nonsense.



I can't resist pointing out that the same Snopes article mentions that
the Indiana house of representatives *did* pass such a bill in 1897.
Though good sense prevailed in the State Senate, apparently. I am
quite sure, however, that this does not affect current mathematical
thinking in this newsgroup!

--

Percy Picacity

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

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

"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.

"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.

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