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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.