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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

On 11/10/2014 8:26 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
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.


No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qi1d$bpp$1@dont-
email.me:

No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.



If you were Sysiphus, pushing boulders up a mountyain only to roll it down
and start again, would you also do if if the moment you showed your head out
of your shack, snipers would red mist you head? Hell no. Any soldire would
say there are some points where no matter what any other idiot says, you keep
your head down. I'm ok with that.

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

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?

I think you're throwing a whole bunch of different terms and thoughts
into a stewpot here, and the flavors aren't mixing well.

Point #1: the term "public domain" has a broadly-accepted legal
meaning. It means "This idea belongs to the public as a whole. No
one has proprietary rights to it. Anyone can use it without asking
permission or paying anybody for the rights."

So, if you do in fact "put it in the public domain", you would be
doing so in a way which *explicitly* renounces any proprietary rights
to the invention, and deliberately gives up control over how it was
used.

It seems to be a good question as to whether an inventor can in fact
release something completely to the public domain... in some
jurisdictions there's a clear way to do this, I understand, while in
others there is not. Some poeple who do wish to do this, do it
explicitly by publishing a statement on the order of "I grant
everyone, everywhere, a perpetual free transferrable license to use
this invention for any purpose whatsoever."

This is clearly not what you want to do.

Now, even if you *did* release something to the public domain, that
doesn't prevent you from distributing it in other ways or making a
profit. You can still do that.

All it does, is prevent you from *stopping* other people from doing
so.

The latter is the *specific* purpose of the patent system. A patent
grants you a specific time-limited right to prevent other people from
using your invention, in return for your having adequately described
the invention in a clear way so that other people can learn from it.

If that IS so, then the patent system is violently in need of serious reform,

Ummm... that's what a patent *is*.

A patent is, in effect, a government's agreement, to put the
government's power behind your right-of-exclusivity, for a limited
period of time, in return for you being willing to describe your
invention (to help advance the state of the art).

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.

That is entirely your right.

What you would have, then, is a "trade secret". It something that
know how to do, that you choose to keep secret. You can profit by the
sale of its results. You can maintain exclusivity, by not sharing the
secret (which doesn't mean that you can't tell specific people, but
you would have to have and enforce a proper non-disclosure
agreement).

With a trade secret, you have no protection against somebody
rediscovering the same idea independently, and then using it or
selling it or giving it away for free. Unless you can prove that they
actually took *your* idea (e.g. somebody who was under non-disclosure
with you broke their agreement and leaked the secret), you have no
rights in this case.

Basically, you have two choices - keep the secret to yourself (and
carry the whole burden of keeping it secret, and the whole risk that
somebody will invent the same thing independently), or agree to
disclose the secret under controlled conditions and (in return) gain
some degree of government-sanctioned protection against unauthorized
use.

Frankly, patents don't seem to be a good protection for the small
innovator. Not only are they expensive and troublesome to get, but
the cost of enforcing them still falls on your shoulders... big
companies may (and often do) ignore them, use the idea, and figure
that the cost of prosecuting a patent infringement is beyond the means
of a small inventor.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

Point #1: the term "public domain" has a broadly-accepted legal
meaning. It means "This idea belongs to the public as a whole. No
one has proprietary rights to it. Anyone can use it without asking
permission or paying anybody for the rights."


Good point, I forgot it IS that specific. I was confusing acccess with
ownership.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

Some poeple who do wish to do this, do it
explicitly by publishing a statement on the order of "I grant
everyone, everywhere, a perpetual free transferrable license to use
this invention for any purpose whatsoever."

This is clearly not what you want to do.


Well, I might. So long as they do not then go on to stop me earning from
it myself! That's the prospect that really adds injury to insult. (Yes, that
IS the right way round, in this case.)