Subject:
|
Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:58:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1274 times
|
| |
|
|
Jürgen,
Thanks for the reference to the Article in Business 2.0. It was interesting to
read an article by a writer that I feel has neither an understanding of
Intellectual Property Law nor the LEGO Company. The author also demonstrates a
poor understanding of the law or the history of it. (Also a releatively minor
point: The author wouldn't know artificial intelligence if they stepped in
it, because there is nothing AI about the RCX Brick [and I double dawg dare
anyone to argue the point with me].) I also question the editor who supposedly
read the article and okay'd it for publication. Don't get me wrong, I liked the
article, but it is clear to me why lawyers keep their jobs, especially if this
represents the level of understanding of the business community.
Several times in the article the author makes the point that the "play well"
concept and the brick itself is supposed to lend itself to creativity, self
expression, and the individual developing their own unique creation. While they
do a great job making the case of why TLC shouldn't sue, even presenting the
case for the Pro-side of the arguement, they never build the arguement for the
Con-side.
I clearly agree that Noga is on shaky ground when it comes to the label for his
software, "LegOS." I am not certain a jury or a judge will find that his name
Noga when translated from Polish to English is Leg is a good excuse for naming
it NogaOS (Polish) and LegOS (English). While this is creative and inventive
(what else to you expect from a guy that improved the operating system of the
brick), it might not be enough to battle against the LEGO Trademark.
My advice to both parties is this: LEGO Company should offer to buy the
software and employee Noga to improve it. This ought to cost LEGO a great deal
less than they paid originally to produce the 1.0 firmware and certainly less
than the 2.0 firmware. Noga should sell the software or agree to change the
name. I personally like NogaOS better than ThisOSisBetterThanLEGO'S-OS (but
then the better part is debateable).
If the MAC/WindowsOS world is any indication, there is room in the world for
two operating systems. Of course, there is LINUX and BeOS and UNIX (several
versions) and many other OS's so I guess there is room for many more operating
systems. This brings up a historical perspective. Does anyone remember the
early law suit Microsoft battled, and lost, when the PC clones came out? The
author clearly didn't. Compaq (I believe) shipped computers with an operating
system other than DOS on it. Microsoft sued stating that this was in violation
of the agreement signed with Compaq. Unfortunately for Microsoft the company
had only agreed to release DOS on the computers it had at the time, not future
computers that they would develop. The end result was that the a judge ruled
that the operating system was separate from the hardware and as such was not
required to be part of the hardware (something like this in more legal terms
obviously). This led to multiple competing operating systems being developed.
Imagine if the courts had ruled that the operating system and the hardware were
linked and part of the whole, then every time there was a new operating system
you would need new hardware (and if you think that's the situation now, you do
not know computers very well).
So there is legal precedence that says the operating system is separate from
the hardware. This brings me to the second point that the article makes in
favor of TLC not sueing. The creation of this independent operating system
drove the sale of the product which is the principle function of TLC. TLC is
not a software company (anyone that buys the games knows this). What TLC does
is manufacture bricks, in this case a programmable brick. Since LegOS needs the
brick to be of any use than TLC stands to profit from the use of this
independently developed OS. Any legal battle will require TLC to show how the
competing OS hurts business or the company trademark. Calling this an uphill
battle would be an understantment. It would be like climbing K2 or Mount
Everest. There is simply to much legal precedence and court decisions and
benefit to TLC from the development of LegOS to overcome this (IMHO, me the
non-legal, non-expert).
This brings us to the issue of TLC not being able to support it. This really
illustrates the author's ignorance of the "real" world. I place the term "real"
world in quotes because I don't know anyone that would think to sue TLC when
they hack the RCX or replace it with LegOS and then find the RCX doesn't work.
I say this with the understanding that someone might sue and they might find a
jury willing to find in favor of the "idot" and find TLC liable. Afterall, a
jury of morons found in favor of a woman that sculded herself after placing a
cup of hot coffee between her legs in an automobile prior to driving away from
the drive-up window. All things being equal, TLC will never be found liable for
anyone that intentionally goes through the actions required to replace the OS
with LegOS and then finds the RCX useless. NOTE: LegOS does not injure the RCX
brick, in fact it works quite well, but replacing any "native" OS with another
is risky and can end up damaging the original product.
Finally, the state of understanding of the terms intellectual property,
copyright, patent and trademark is simply appaling. Doesn't anyone know what
these terms mean and how to correctly apply them? TLC has intellectual property
on the operating system and patent on the RCX. As long as no one takes apart
the OS and re-engineer it with the original code, then they are not violating
the intellectual property. If the software is "open-source" then the original
code is open to this and without intellectual property (yes, if you add
something to open source code you lose the right to claim intellectual property
over it, no matter what your senator or house rep says).
If you develop your own OS from top to bottom, you can claim IP only on the
software not on the hardware it runs. TLC developed an OS that communicated
with chips and circuitry that made the brick gather input and respond with
output. You cannot claim IP over that, only the OS. If you develop your own OS
to do this and its not based on TLC's IP then you are in the clear. The RCX is
not covered by IP. It was up until it was patented. Now there is not an IP law
in the land that can protect the RCX, it's covered by patent law.
The RCX is patented. If some other company came along with an infra-red, 3
input, 3 output device, with 4 opertating buttons, studs all over the thing,
and it looked like the RCX, they would most likely loose the battle. However,
another company might develop a 4 sensor, 8 motor device that runs off AC and
can be directly connected to a computer, and this would not violate the patent
(again this depends upon many things). If that device used LegOS for the OS,
then I would think TLC would take immediate action to get the name of the OS
changed. The problem is that no patent, no matter what, protects a company from
this type of competition. You might be able to corner the market on, let's say,
60 second photo print developing (Polariod), and successfully sue other
companies (Kodak) from issuing similar technology because the patent office
issued a patent (mistakenly) on 60 second processing. This patent only lasts a
few years (25, 50, etc). The fact of it is, that's competition and it makes
economies stronger not weaker. The concept of the RCX is not patentable, so any
company willing to invest R&D into a competing device along the same concept of
the RCX is free to do so.
I pose a question to you all. If you were to tinker around in your laboratory
and discover a way to use the RCX brick to control all of the functions of your
house or power a robot that does all of the basic chores around the house like
vaccuming, would TLC have a patent, intellectual property, trademark or
copyright on that? Well? Times up! The answer is.... NEITHER. You developed it
so you have the IP. If you apply for the patent and are awarded one, you will
own the patent on it. Can you sell it? Yes, you can sell the software, the
idea, even re-market kits that package the RCX and the Mindstorms product. You
might want to enter into a partnership with TLC to get the parts cheaply at a
volume discount, but you are not required to do so. Reselling a companies
products is not against the law, even if you adapt their product for other uses
(and I really wish I could think of an example that fits at this moment).
I know this is a long rant, and I could go on, but I will not. I am glad TLC is
not suing, but I hope Noga finds a better name for his OS. Part of the problem
I deal with daily in my business of placing courses on the web is trying to
educate people how think they know and understand the terms copyright,
intellectual property, and trademark, the true nature of the law.
Unfortunately, these terms are often used improperly and in ways to frighten
and threaten people.
While I liked the article for its substence, I also felt it furthered the
stereotype that leads companies to over protect themselves from situations that
further their products. I have confidence in TLC and their judgement. Despite
all of the legal action I have seen them take in the past few years over web
sites, I have never felt it was unfair or unjustified. The company has a Logo
and a reputation to uphold, but suggesting that they are losing something by
not sueing an individual for developing or improving their product would be
like sueing the train clubs for taking their product out into public or
developing their own MOCs.
Sincerely and with all humility,
Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
| (...) It is conceivable to show that a competing OS hurts the company trademark (I don't think LegOS does, other than in the use of LEGO in the name). (...) This is a really poor example, and grossly unfair to the jury in question. Evidence was (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
| (...) One thing that was not yet mentioned is that TLC doesn't sue their fans for creating their own Mindstorms software, and when somebody is not respecting their trademarks they don't start by sending letters at a cost of $1000 like everybody (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
