 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in .debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently. My view is that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) What do you mean? There is some evidence for both sides. They do go to the effort to restrict the general consumer flow of information - for whatever reason - so obviously they care at least a little. There are many cited examples of retail (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Both and also legal. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I want to understand your point here better. The above reads to me that you only respect property rights when you have willingly entered into a contract with someone. Is this really true? Do I need to sign a contract with you before I let you (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Hi Frank, Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of legalese with hundreds of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One interesting question is how does one determine that someone has accepted an implied or understood contract? (...) Ok, now how are TLC's intellectual property rights different from the property rights of me for my LEGO collection? Or is the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Sometimes that's hard. Misunderstandings and differing expectations happen all the time and largely it's because of different world-view which is kind of the same as having accepted different implied contracts. I (sort of) keep track of what (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I'm curious: Do you consider intellectual property rights to be a subset of property rights, or something totally separate? The original issue, I think, was at least partially about intellectual property rights. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
