 | | Re: legOS —George McBay
|
| | | The included end-user licence agreements that came with Mindstorms had dire warnings about the illegality of reverse engineering the product in any way. These types of 'agreements', to my knowledge, aren't ever really challenged by the companies who (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: legOS —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | (...) Where did you see that? It didn't catch my eye. -Kekoa (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: legOS —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | Kekoa Proudfoot wrote in message ... (...) Oh, I forgot to comment on this. Companies are patent crazy, if it's not done the "usual" way, they'll try to patent it, EVEN IF IT SEEMS LIKE ANYONE COULD FIGURE IT OUT. The IR transmission is a bit (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Patent pending —Brian Stormont
|
| | | | (...) Here's the exact patent text from my license agreement (found under III. Title): The communications protocol is protected by a pending patent application. That's it, in it's entirety. Now we can discuss whether I violated the License Agreement (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Patent pending —Brett Carver
|
| | | | (...) Note 1: a patent application doesn't "protect" anything. It simply informs people that an application for a patent has been made which may or may not actually be granted. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, but if the patent IS (...) (26 years ago, 2-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
