 | | Re: 2001 Set info —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | (...) Is anyone else finding this discussion a small pain in the "a postiori"? You guys are now revolving in tighter circles than even Justice Scalia normally attempts. AND arguing in TWO languages about the meaning of a particular word (arguing in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) Some of us just want to know what _is_ acceptable here, so that we are not subject to arbitrary deletions. For example, if I post the URL of where I have 'the list' (hehehe, making it sound evil!), is that a violation of the LUGNET T&C? How (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) You will have to consult an attorney specializing in Intellectual Property or ask LEGO and trust what they say back. (...) It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those of us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope it'll come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is whether source code (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for posterity... Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet: (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | Todd - what the judge said appears to be totally useless and irrelevant to the case that was being judged. I reckon they'll appeal though. Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FzKMoI.92M@lugnet.com... (...) (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah. They were actually expecting this ruling. One advantage of having this before the Supreme Court is that any ruling will be effective nationally, not just in New York. (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
