 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) <snip> Thanks for the clarification of policy. (...) I guess I'll join the chorus of voices asking that you reconsider this. It's not a legally defensible policy, and it's not a practically defensible policy, and further, it sends a bad (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Brad Justus <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message news:FMwGur.E6n@lugnet.com... (...) ... (...) matter. (...) by (...) for, (...) of (...) company (...) the (...) patent (...) in (...) steps (...) Thanks for the clarification. I was the guilty (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) And so a rather uninformed US judge has recently ruled. I don't suppose anyone wants to relocate the lugnet server to anywhere else but Australia or Hongkong? I think it's a _very_ sad day to see Lego take this stance. To get my position clear (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Possibly true. But: 1) I don't want to see people kicked off of LUGnet over it. 2) More importantly, by tacitly allowing claims like this, we lose our freedoms. I know, that sounds melodramatic. But: the "you have to go through our front (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) <snipped bulk of well-thought out post> I agree with you in principle, but I think you're making too much out of this. LEGO is not the first company to claim more copyright protection than they may be entitled to, or can enforce, and they also (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
