 | | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) stand (...) OK, am I to assume then that _anything_ I read on the web is fair game? I'm going to need a 2nd Geocities account then!---to put stuff like this up on, and link to. (and await nasty legal threatening letters from) (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give it up - probably won't happen. Why should they do it anyway? If they define a policy to be [---] then they might somehow be bound to that, if for no other reason than PR. If they choose to simply remain silent, which is certainly their (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Translation help wanted
|
|
(...) (URL) it is... I asked someone of ItLug to check it for typos or other errors, but it should be fine. The standard disclaimer is needed, anyway: IANAL. I think that the legal meaning of the translated agreement is like that of the english one, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-00, to lugnet.loc.it, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Yes, but they could have posted the "request" or "Order" (depending on view) to .Lego.direct. (the one that was sent to Todd that caused him to withdraw the posts from pubilc display) That is what I was meaning. I would hope LSI will put (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Fz2vn5.II9@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) community-driven (...) a (...) of (...) on (...) it (...) hanging on (...) at (...) on (...) loading (...) and (...) was (...) manner (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give them time. Brad said they are doing an investigation into the incident and will post about it when they have more facts. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
James Powell <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote: [stuff i've snipped] [then from larry:] (...) [james' comments on napster snipped] Copyright law is very different from that for trade secrets. This discussion should go to .off-topic.debate -- it's (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Was it? LSI has _NOT_ opted to publicly post what they privately E-mailed to Todd on this issue. So, we are into the land of speculation as to if LSI considered it proprietary. (...) _big_ paintbrush here Lar. What about:hmm, my organ albums? (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Thanks for digging harder than I did, and... you sir, are a gentleman, I appreciate the retraction. Look on the bright side, the base fine appears to be capped at 5e6. Now if we're talking Lira I can cover that. :-) (...) Ya, it is a detriment (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I apologize. My statement is true for copyright law (with which I am much more familiar), but apparently not so for trade secrets. (This is where all of those I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimers come in.) (URL) However, I also find it interesting (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
