Subject:
|
Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:11:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1256 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Frank Filz writes:
> 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).
Boy, I sure need a course in "how!" I am searching the literature on how LINUX
hurts the trademark on Windows. Or more to the point, how Pocket Linux hurts
the trademark on an HP Handheld or palm computer that originally held as its OS
the Pocket PC OS. But if Frank you're talking about the name "LegOS", I tend to
agree that Noga has less legal rights there than the courts will eventually
allow. As stated I hope Noga changes the name to something better and TLC lays
off sueing Noga simply because he has competing OS that requires the purchase
of a TLC product.
> This is a really poor example, and grossly unfair to the jury in
> question. Evidence was introduced that McDonalds served coffee hotter
> than other fast food places, and had ignored repeated complaints about
> how hot it was. If you dismiss this complaint out of hand, you are
> implicitly saying companies should have no responsibility for their
> products. Please find a different example, one which was totally thrown
> out by an appeals court (in this particular case, the appeals court
> reduced the damages if I recall, which I think is also rather common,
> especially for these multi-million dollar awards).
Yes, yes, I was totally in the wrong. I was unfair to characterize the jury in
this manner. I am certain that based with all of the facts and after careful
deliberation not one of them used any influence or prior bias to reach a
conclusion. For those that are interested a consumer/plantif organization of
laywers has this to say on the case (http://caoc.com/facts.htm)(my thanks to
Danny). Keep in mind that it is the plantif side of the case and not an
independent assessment of the facts.
I do think companies should be accountable for their actions and their
products. I also think the consumer should accept some responsibility for their
actions. Placing a hot cup of coffee between your legs, no matter how hot, is
unsafe. If you would like to debate that with me I would be glad to. As an EMT
for 4 years, I can assure you that injury can occur quite easily when people
are not doing the sensible thing.
By the way, I am searching for a better example of poor jury decisions. If you
have one that I can site in the future please send it to me. I do not feel that
juries are always correct. It is a good system, but it is not absent of errors.
There are too many people being exhonorated based on DNA evidence to suggest
that the jury system is error free.
>
> I think reverse engineering was used in the development of the competing
> RCX OSes.
Yes, it was if your definition of reverse engineering is taking something apart
and looking at how it was made. And besides, reverse engineering is not
illegal. Making an exact copy of something and producing it as your own and
violating a patent is against the law. Noga probably de-compiled the source
code and examined the code to see what commands did what and how the RCX
circuitry responded to the code. This is also reverse engineering and is not
against the law. Altering or adding to the code, compiling it, and calling it
your own, would have been against the law. As I understand it, Noga's code is
based on a different language than the one LEGO used in the RCX.
>
> > 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).
>
> This depends very much on the particular open source license involved.
> Most open source licenses allow the author to retain copyright, but
> grant license to the open source to use the IP involved. In fact, a
> license which only granted the author the right to be acknowledged as
> the author is granting IP to that author (and I would refuse to
> contribute to an open source project which refused to acknowledge my
> contribution).
This might be where business and academia are tearing the definition of
Intellectual Property apart. The original author of the code has IP rights on
the original code only. If the code is added to then the sum of the parts is
no longer the IP of the original author. The original author retains IP only on
the original code. The individual or group that added to the open source code
can claim IP rights only on the code they added. Any of the original code that
needs to be altered is in a gray area (according to what I read). Does the
original code author lose IP over the part that needed to be altered and goes
to the individual that made the alteration? Or does the altered code simply
become truly open with no IP holder? Gets messy doesn't it?
Ultimately, this becomes so convoluted and the code changed so much, that "open
source" by legal definition is coming to mean "without assumed rights by any
individual or group over the source". Or so I am told by people in academia.
> Quibble: Patent Law is a major part of IP Law. In fact, I'm not sure of
> any law which is called "IP Law". IP Law includes such laws as Patent
> Law, Copyright Law, and Trademark Law.
Not accourding to the universities. I may have IP rights over stuff, but the
university has patent right, according the documents I signed. Plus they share
in the IP rights. Copyright is never intellectual property right and show me
something that says that in print and I will show you something that is legally
false and against statue. You can have the intellectual property over something
but not have the copyright over it. Again, these four things are incredibly
confused in the press and literature, and in many cases the interpretation of
the laws are constantly changing.
> Actually, the basic concept of the RCX (a programmable brick which is
> part of a system of construction toys) might be patentable. Of course
> the fact that there is prior art probably means TLC's opportunities for
> patenting the idea are limited, but whoever did it first could likely
> have patented it.
>
> Frank
Here's where things get a little fuzy for me. It is my understanding that you
can't patent a concept, at least your not supposed to be able to. And I believe
that you are still required to be able if called upon to demonstrate or create
a working version of the patent if challenged. True?
Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
| Todd wrote; ..major snippage (...) ..major snippage You may find that this is not quite true. There were some serious cases brought by Microsoft against people who decompiled MSDOS and reverse engineered a lot of MSDOS' undocumented features. This (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego)
| | | Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
| (...) Taken from an e-mail sent to me a few months back: --- Subject: FW: Stella Awards In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $ 2.9 million U.S. in damages to 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
