|
|
 | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| FYI, there is now a posting in lugnet.lego.announce that should help to clarify this issue: (URL) set to FUT lugnet.lego.direct because of some rules (that I still don't quite get) about where official messages can be posted and followed-up to, but (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| Ok, I agree with the *possibility* of the name being a problem, but I am more concerned about the hacks themselves being contested instead. However, LegOS is NOT for commercial purposes, so that should be a factor to consider here. I wouldn't be AS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) In the US, at least, a trademark *must* be defended, or the company loses it. If legOS does, in fact, infringe on their trademark, they would have had to defend it pretty quickly or that usage would pass into the public domain. Or something (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) I concur. If I manufactured a new extra-cushiony disk storage system that used *really* tiny sponges for support, and I called it Micro-Soft, I'm sure I'd get a letter. This particular case has the added spin of stepping soundly into the "LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) So, if they had sued him 2.5 years ago, you would have supported them? Just wondering. It's because of thinking like this that most companies would have sued him long ago... Troy PS: I thought it was just common sense, atleast around here, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
