Subject:
|
Re: Kego Constructopedia
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:11:07 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
S.S. OZSARIYILDIZ <ozsariyildiz@ct.tudelft.NOMORESPAMnl>
|
Viewed:
|
707 times
|
| |
|
|
How about those below or with any other combinations
Lexical +... ( Graphics + Lego)
lLexiCON
lLexis
Lexis-G
Lexicon-G
Lexis-lBody
or
lDesign Partterns
lShape Grammar
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom>
To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kego Constructopedia
> In lugnet.robotics, Brian Alano writes:
> > If we like Constructopedia, but are worried about [trademark]
> > infringement, how about Constructopaedia?
>
> I am reminded of the fake ROLEX(r) watches that say "ROIEX" hoping no-one • will
> notice. I don't care if it would hold up in court or not, that's just • plain
> sleazy (-:
>
> No, as long as we're in the toy, educational, or educational toy areas we
> should just use a totally different word or phrase.
>
> If it were up to me, it would just be a generic descriptive phrase like
> "glossary of sub-assemblies". Good thing it isn't up to me <-8
>
> - Robert Munafo http://www.mrob.com/
> LEGO: TC+++(8480) SW++ #+ S-- LS++ Hsp M+ A@ LM++ YB64m IC13
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Kego Constructopedia
|
| (...) I am reminded of the fake ROLEX(r) watches that say "ROIEX" hoping no-one will notice. I don't care if it would hold up in court or not, that's just plain sleazy (-: No, as long as we're in the toy, educational, or educational toy areas we (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
10 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
|
|
|
|
