What would Microsoft have to do?
-
Could you supply proof? I was unable to locate anything reliable. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
Yeah, I have the source code on my other HDD. Obviously I have no *proof*, to be honest, I was under the impression it was commonly known and had been proven. However if the books which made this claim were exaggerating the degree to which it was definite fact then I guess I'd better not refer to it again... Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
That surprised me coming from you of all people. Did mummy never tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? It doesn't matter what Microsoft have done, you have no legal right to violate your governing laws, whatever you may know or have perceived to know about them. If you believe they have violated your laws, then it is up to you if you wish to use all legal methods available to you to rectify this, not copy them. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
David Wulff wrote: Did mummy never tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Suicidal Tendencies told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but they make you feel a whole lot better. Seriously, I am obviously not setting out to break the law, but I doubt that they will sue me for putting a dollar sign next to the letter M in a public forum, Slashdot does it every day. For them to pursue such a thing would be a PR disaster to such a degree that I think even the people who sue charities for buying PC's with OEM copies of obsolete software on them could see. I still own all my Microsoft software, as I do all my other software, and I would still be against anyone else pirating their software as much as anyone else. As for their violating my laws, I don't know that they did - I have no idea which laws come into play when someone in the US accuses me of a crime to someone else in the US. The point is that regardless of any legal question, they violated my *right* to sell software I own ( and have never installed in one case ), and because of their size, ebay let them without giving me any recourse or even the possibility of proving my innocence. I just got the final notice from them in my inbox this morning. I doubt they will go under for lack of my US$68, but it's close to what I was going to get for Photodraw, so screw them. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Yeah, I have the source code on my other HDD. Obviously I have no *proof*, to be honest, I was under the impression it was commonly known and had been proven. However if the books which made this claim were exaggerating the degree to which it was definite fact then I guess I'd better not refer to it again... Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Are you referring to the various papers (and quite possibly books) published about two to three years ago now, when the big "Microsoft made Windows crash Netscape" FUD came about? It was never proved outside of ZDNet-style talkback forums and zealots, by any reputable third party. Indeed, when Netscape released the initial Mozilla source code these claims mysteriously disapeared almost overnight. You cannot blame a third party's bad programming on any other company. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
-
David Wulff wrote: To date Microsoft have not used their monopoly (be it legal or not) in any way that has directly and negatively affected myself or my business - but rather are responsible for my income and thus everything I have to my name short of my education You're kidding, right? What if IBM had never developed its PC or killed the project early on. What if Compaq had never cloned the BIOS? What if Seattle Software refused to sell QDOS to Microsoft? If any of these scenarios had taken place it's extremely doubtful that Microsoft would have become anything near what it is today. There is even an excellent chance that Microsoft would have been nothing but a footnote in the history of personal computers and an excellent chance that Apple would have thrived and become today's Microsoft. Do you mean to tell me that in Microsoft's absence you would have been unable use Apple's development tools and API's to create your applications? I think you give Microsoft too much credit. They were in the right place at the right time, led by an incredible businessman and have developed into a master in marketing, but they really haven't yet developed anything so revolutionary that we can't believe that someone else wouldn't have done roughly the same thing.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
Mike Mullikin wrote: You're kidding, right? No. I assume you are, either that or you did not read my reply. Mate, you are at completely the wrong end of the stick here. I did no say, nor imply any of what you have just said. None. Zippo. Nought. What I did say, and what I am standing by, is that I owe what I have and what I am today to Microsoft. It doesn't matter if Microsoft owe there own fortune on IBM et al, or that any other company could have risen in it's place, that was not what I said. Mike Mullikin wrote: I think you give Microsoft too much credit. I think you are getting me confused with the original author of this thread. I am not giving Microsoft credit for the computing industry, and I have never stated that. Mike Mullikin wrote: they really haven't yet developed anything so revolutionary that we can't believe that someone else wouldn't have done roughly the same thing. That is true of every single invention and every single breakthrough in the history of mankind. Ever heard of 100 monkeys writing Shakespeare given enough time? Well, despite your personal opinions on that theory, it is true. Granted it could take anywhere from 1 day to 1 trillion, trillion years, but it would happen. The correct sequence would eventually be replicated. Statistians will tell you it is by all means impossible, and thus generally adopted as such, but it can never be proved as such 100%. Likewise, the same can be said for innovation with respect to the computing industry. Your argument there makes no sense, and holds zero weight in pretty much any context you'd like to throw it into. If Linus hadn't messed around and decided to create Linux, someone else would have done so. If Hitler had not decided to occupy more of Europe, someone else would have done so. If the Americans had not been the first to send a man to the moon, someone else would have done so. If America had not dropped the first nuclear bomb on civilians, you can bet your arse someone else would have done so. But does that mean they are not credited with the achievements? By all means don't be naive in believing that if Microsoft did not innovate in a particular field that no one else would have, but don't be so arrogant as to take away the credit for the achievement. Microsoft provided the R&D behind most industry fields nowadays, ranging form Interactive Visual Media through Natural Language Processing to Quantum
-
Are you referring to the various papers (and quite possibly books) published about two to three years ago now, when the big "Microsoft made Windows crash Netscape" FUD came about? It was never proved outside of ZDNet-style talkback forums and zealots, by any reputable third party. Indeed, when Netscape released the initial Mozilla source code these claims mysteriously disapeared almost overnight. You cannot blame a third party's bad programming on any other company. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
David Wulff wrote: Are you referring to the various papers (and quite possibly books) published about two to three years ago now, when the big "Microsoft made Windows crash Netscape" FUD came about? No, although I *was* a Netscape zealot, they obviously let their standard drop as the wars went on. NS6 was an abortional mess. What I'm referring to is much older than that, in the days when there was more than one company providing OS for x86. It has been claimed ( and I thought substantiated ) that as there was more than one OS and more than one Office type suite, that the Microsoft versions of both refused to work in tandem with the competitions complimentary product ( I don't believe it was OS/2 and I dunno if it was Lotus, but I'm saying Microsoft Word crashed OS/2 and Windows refused to run Lotus, for example ). And as I said, I thought it was commonly known and proven fact from the context in which I read it ( admittedly now that I think of it, it was probably a book called 'how the geeks of silicon valley became rich, changed the world, and still can't get a date', or similar ), and while I would generally not bring it up anyhow ( it's only ammunition for discussion with one-eyed zealots ), I will not bring it up again unless I can substantiate it as a result of this discussion. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
David Wulff wrote: Did mummy never tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Suicidal Tendencies told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but they make you feel a whole lot better. Seriously, I am obviously not setting out to break the law, but I doubt that they will sue me for putting a dollar sign next to the letter M in a public forum, Slashdot does it every day. For them to pursue such a thing would be a PR disaster to such a degree that I think even the people who sue charities for buying PC's with OEM copies of obsolete software on them could see. I still own all my Microsoft software, as I do all my other software, and I would still be against anyone else pirating their software as much as anyone else. As for their violating my laws, I don't know that they did - I have no idea which laws come into play when someone in the US accuses me of a crime to someone else in the US. The point is that regardless of any legal question, they violated my *right* to sell software I own ( and have never installed in one case ), and because of their size, ebay let them without giving me any recourse or even the possibility of proving my innocence. I just got the final notice from them in my inbox this morning. I doubt they will go under for lack of my US$68, but it's close to what I was going to get for Photodraw, so screw them. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Again, "you" refers to the reader. ****Christian Graus wrote: Suicidal Tendencies told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but they make you feel a whole lot better. Hmm... I'll remember that. Does it work in court? ;) ****Christian Graus wrote: Seriously, I am obviously not setting out to break the law, but I doubt that they will sue me for putting a dollar sign next to the letter M in a public forum It's not a case of them filing a suit against you, it's a case of you willingly and knowingly violating a law - regardless of which law that is - and then turning round and penalising Microsoft for violating the law - regardless of which law that is. When you are standing in a court waiting for sentence to be passed, the fact that you only violated a - in your opinion - minor law does not make it any less a crime than rape and murder. If we as a society start placing more value on one law over another (and I don't mean by public consensus having a law changed or removed), then our entire judicial system will collapse. Yes I would still state that if I was going to be charged with a petty crime. This also applies to your "charity" example. ****Christian Graus wrote: I still own all my Microsoft software You own a license to use the software, and in most cases you may own the media it is stored on, but very rarely do software companies ever give you full ownership of commercial software. Software may seem like a product, but it is very much a service in that respect. Your experience with eBay is not necessarily representative of the company's (any company's) views on you personally. If stolen Audi's where going eight out of every ten on eBay, you can bet your life's worth that eBay would stop all Audi's being sold through their service without explicit permission from the company that owns the brandname. It's not a case of Microsoft singling you - or anyone else out - but rather that they have a legal obligation under US law to protect the use of their trademarks, etc, and that isn't even touching on the various tax issues, export restrictions, etc, etc. They are required to do this or they will be breaking the law. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to ev
-
David Wulff wrote: Are you referring to the various papers (and quite possibly books) published about two to three years ago now, when the big "Microsoft made Windows crash Netscape" FUD came about? No, although I *was* a Netscape zealot, they obviously let their standard drop as the wars went on. NS6 was an abortional mess. What I'm referring to is much older than that, in the days when there was more than one company providing OS for x86. It has been claimed ( and I thought substantiated ) that as there was more than one OS and more than one Office type suite, that the Microsoft versions of both refused to work in tandem with the competitions complimentary product ( I don't believe it was OS/2 and I dunno if it was Lotus, but I'm saying Microsoft Word crashed OS/2 and Windows refused to run Lotus, for example ). And as I said, I thought it was commonly known and proven fact from the context in which I read it ( admittedly now that I think of it, it was probably a book called 'how the geeks of silicon valley became rich, changed the world, and still can't get a date', or similar ), and while I would generally not bring it up anyhow ( it's only ammunition for discussion with one-eyed zealots ), I will not bring it up again unless I can substantiate it as a result of this discussion. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Dammit Christian, will you please stop being so quick to respond. I am writing three response at a time here! My poor keyboard is supposed to have a three year lifespan, not three weeks... ;) I'd have to do too much extra research to attempt a structured reply to that, and I really don't have the time at the moment (i've still got two parties: tomorrow and saturday, and I'm still recovering from last night/this morning!) so I will have to let it slide me by. I'll take your word as you're probably bigger than me anyway... ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
-
Dammit Christian, will you please stop being so quick to respond. I am writing three response at a time here! My poor keyboard is supposed to have a three year lifespan, not three weeks... ;) I'd have to do too much extra research to attempt a structured reply to that, and I really don't have the time at the moment (i've still got two parties: tomorrow and saturday, and I'm still recovering from last night/this morning!) so I will have to let it slide me by. I'll take your word as you're probably bigger than me anyway... ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to every computer and TV Set connected to the Internet in "0" SECONDS (YES! ZERO seconds!)" - Bill SerGio, Professional W*nker
David Wulff wrote: Dammit Christian, will you please stop being so quick to respond. I am writing three response at a time here! My poor keyboard is supposed to have a three year lifespan, not three weeks... Sorry 'bout that - I have no life apart from the Internet. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Again, "you" refers to the reader. ****Christian Graus wrote: Suicidal Tendencies told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but they make you feel a whole lot better. Hmm... I'll remember that. Does it work in court? ;) ****Christian Graus wrote: Seriously, I am obviously not setting out to break the law, but I doubt that they will sue me for putting a dollar sign next to the letter M in a public forum It's not a case of them filing a suit against you, it's a case of you willingly and knowingly violating a law - regardless of which law that is - and then turning round and penalising Microsoft for violating the law - regardless of which law that is. When you are standing in a court waiting for sentence to be passed, the fact that you only violated a - in your opinion - minor law does not make it any less a crime than rape and murder. If we as a society start placing more value on one law over another (and I don't mean by public consensus having a law changed or removed), then our entire judicial system will collapse. Yes I would still state that if I was going to be charged with a petty crime. This also applies to your "charity" example. ****Christian Graus wrote: I still own all my Microsoft software You own a license to use the software, and in most cases you may own the media it is stored on, but very rarely do software companies ever give you full ownership of commercial software. Software may seem like a product, but it is very much a service in that respect. Your experience with eBay is not necessarily representative of the company's (any company's) views on you personally. If stolen Audi's where going eight out of every ten on eBay, you can bet your life's worth that eBay would stop all Audi's being sold through their service without explicit permission from the company that owns the brandname. It's not a case of Microsoft singling you - or anyone else out - but rather that they have a legal obligation under US law to protect the use of their trademarks, etc, and that isn't even touching on the various tax issues, export restrictions, etc, etc. They are required to do this or they will be breaking the law. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I wrote a program in Visual C++ that allows me to send over 5,000 GIGABYTES of Video to ev
David Wulff wrote: Hmm... I'll remember that. Does it work in court? My point is I doubt I will ever be able to tell you for sure. David Wulff wrote: it's a case of you willingly and knowingly violating a law - regardless of which law that is - and then turning round and penalising Microsoft for violating the law - regardless of which law that is. 1. I didn't start using M$ to punish them for the way they treated me. 2. Until you posted your *opinion* on this, I'd not heard anyone suggest that it may be illegal to use M$ ( or even MS according to your post ). Do you remember when Intel tried to copyright MMX ? They failed to copyright three letters, how can Microsoft not fail to copyright one and a punctuation mark ? David Wulff wrote: When you are standing in a court waiting for sentence to be passed, the fact that you only violated a - in your opinion - minor law does not make it any less a crime than rape and murder. Sounds like the sort of logic that got this country populated in the first place. Stole some bread - deportation. David Wulff wrote: If we as a society start placing more value on one law over another (and I don't mean by public consensus having a law changed or removed), then our entire judicial system will collapse. It's not a question of placing value on laws, your supposition that I'm even *breaking* a law is as unproven as mine that Microsoft sabotaged competitors products compatibility with their own. David Wulff wrote: This also applies to your "charity" example. In both cases my point is not the law, but M$ not caring less about what is *fair*, but rather who they can screw for money. The point is not the law, but PR and being fair. David Wulff wrote: You own a license to use the software, and in most cases you may own the media it is stored on, but very rarely do software companies ever give you full ownership of commercial software. Software may seem like a product, but it is very much a service in that respect. That is true - I may not reverse engineer it, or deal in it ( by making copies ), but the licence is surely transferable. If it isn't, what is the disadvantage in buying OEM software ( where the licence IS attached to one machine ) ? David Wulff wrote: Your experience with eBay is not necessarily representative of the company's (any
-
David Wulff wrote: Hmm... I'll remember that. Does it work in court? My point is I doubt I will ever be able to tell you for sure. David Wulff wrote: it's a case of you willingly and knowingly violating a law - regardless of which law that is - and then turning round and penalising Microsoft for violating the law - regardless of which law that is. 1. I didn't start using M$ to punish them for the way they treated me. 2. Until you posted your *opinion* on this, I'd not heard anyone suggest that it may be illegal to use M$ ( or even MS according to your post ). Do you remember when Intel tried to copyright MMX ? They failed to copyright three letters, how can Microsoft not fail to copyright one and a punctuation mark ? David Wulff wrote: When you are standing in a court waiting for sentence to be passed, the fact that you only violated a - in your opinion - minor law does not make it any less a crime than rape and murder. Sounds like the sort of logic that got this country populated in the first place. Stole some bread - deportation. David Wulff wrote: If we as a society start placing more value on one law over another (and I don't mean by public consensus having a law changed or removed), then our entire judicial system will collapse. It's not a question of placing value on laws, your supposition that I'm even *breaking* a law is as unproven as mine that Microsoft sabotaged competitors products compatibility with their own. David Wulff wrote: This also applies to your "charity" example. In both cases my point is not the law, but M$ not caring less about what is *fair*, but rather who they can screw for money. The point is not the law, but PR and being fair. David Wulff wrote: You own a license to use the software, and in most cases you may own the media it is stored on, but very rarely do software companies ever give you full ownership of commercial software. Software may seem like a product, but it is very much a service in that respect. That is true - I may not reverse engineer it, or deal in it ( by making copies ), but the licence is surely transferable. If it isn't, what is the disadvantage in buying OEM software ( where the licence IS attached to one machine ) ? David Wulff wrote: Your experience with eBay is not necessarily representative of the company's (any
****Christian Graus wrote: 1. I didn't start using M$ to punish them for the way they treated me. No, that was not what I meant at all. ****Christian Graus wrote: how can Microsoft not fail to copyright one and a punctuation mark ? It has nothing to do with copyrighting "M$" or even "MS", it is the fact that you are "passing off" a trademark in a shortened form, which is a direct violation of the international trademark laws that most countries noadays have adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that you are using M$ to indicate Microsoft. ****Christian Graus wrote: It's not a question of placing value on laws, your supposition that I'm even *breaking* a law is as unproven as mine that Microsoft sabotaged competitors products compatibility with their own. Actually it's not, as passing off a trademark in a shortened form is irrefutably a violation of the applicable laws, at least those that have been adopted in the USA, UK and Aussie country, along with many, many others. I had already agreed that with your specific example I would not take it anymore and would accept that you were correct until I can find time to research it. ****Christian Graus wrote: In both cases my point is not the law, but M$ not caring less about what is *fair*, but rather who they can screw for money. The point is not the law, but PR and being fair. No, the point is very much the law. If Microsoft had not initially come down on the charity, then they themselves would be breaking the law. Are you honestly saying that it's okay for anybody to break the law if it's good PR? As soon as the formalities were over with, Microsoft stopped legal proceedings and put together a more-than-resonable deal with the charity/ies involved. Law comes first, PR and being fair comes afterwards. ****Christian Graus wrote: That is true - I may not reverse engineer it, or deal in it ( by making copies ), but the licence is surely transferable. If it isn't, what is the disadvantage in buying OEM software ( where the licence IS attached to one machine ) ? It depends entirely on your license, and whether the individual clauses are applicable in the country (or state) in which you live. I believe that many European countries (possibly including the UK), you have the right under law to reverse engine
-
****Christian Graus wrote: 1. I didn't start using M$ to punish them for the way they treated me. No, that was not what I meant at all. ****Christian Graus wrote: how can Microsoft not fail to copyright one and a punctuation mark ? It has nothing to do with copyrighting "M$" or even "MS", it is the fact that you are "passing off" a trademark in a shortened form, which is a direct violation of the international trademark laws that most countries noadays have adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that you are using M$ to indicate Microsoft. ****Christian Graus wrote: It's not a question of placing value on laws, your supposition that I'm even *breaking* a law is as unproven as mine that Microsoft sabotaged competitors products compatibility with their own. Actually it's not, as passing off a trademark in a shortened form is irrefutably a violation of the applicable laws, at least those that have been adopted in the USA, UK and Aussie country, along with many, many others. I had already agreed that with your specific example I would not take it anymore and would accept that you were correct until I can find time to research it. ****Christian Graus wrote: In both cases my point is not the law, but M$ not caring less about what is *fair*, but rather who they can screw for money. The point is not the law, but PR and being fair. No, the point is very much the law. If Microsoft had not initially come down on the charity, then they themselves would be breaking the law. Are you honestly saying that it's okay for anybody to break the law if it's good PR? As soon as the formalities were over with, Microsoft stopped legal proceedings and put together a more-than-resonable deal with the charity/ies involved. Law comes first, PR and being fair comes afterwards. ****Christian Graus wrote: That is true - I may not reverse engineer it, or deal in it ( by making copies ), but the licence is surely transferable. If it isn't, what is the disadvantage in buying OEM software ( where the licence IS attached to one machine ) ? It depends entirely on your license, and whether the individual clauses are applicable in the country (or state) in which you live. I believe that many European countries (possibly including the UK), you have the right under law to reverse engine
David Wulff wrote: It has nothing to do with copyrighting "M$" or even "MS", it is the fact that you are "passing off" a trademark in a shortened form, which is a direct violation of the international trademark laws that most countries noadays have adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that you are using M$ to indicate Microsoft. What does 'passing off' mean ? You're saying that I can't refer to ANY company unless I type the name in full ? Can I say Coke ? Can I say Mac ? David Wulff wrote: I had already agreed that with your specific example I would not take it anymore and would accept that you were correct until I can find time to research it.\ Had you ? I thought *I'd* said I would assume I was wrong as you had researched it and I obviously needed to. David Wulff wrote: If Microsoft had not initially come down on the charity, then they themselves would be breaking the law. How ? David Wulff wrote: As soon as the formalities were over with, Microsoft stopped legal proceedings and put together a more-than-resonable deal with the charity/ies involved. AFTER the whole thing became a PR disaster, they did something, did they ? David Wulff wrote: I believe that many European countries (possibly including the UK), you have the right under law to reverse engineer any computer software for the purposes of education. Really ? That kind of sucks. David Wulff wrote: All it takes is one person to tell them that they "suspect" the software "could" be unlicensed, and they have full responsibility if the product changes hands. I understand that, but what would be reasonable when the auction has three days to go is to give me 24 hours notice of their suspicion, suspend my ability to contact my bidders ( so I can't make the deal go ahead outside of ebay ) and let me respond. David Wulff wrote: Your statement about the DVD's is shocking to me. I would suspect that they took due note of it and took appropriate action, regardlessly of how stupidly they seem to have worded the response. Once you have notified them of the posibility they are fully liable if the transaction goes ahead. I find it very hard to believe that a company like that would willingly put themselves at risk. They explicitly told me that they would only look into it if the people who owned copyright for the movie cont
-
David Wulff wrote: It has nothing to do with copyrighting "M$" or even "MS", it is the fact that you are "passing off" a trademark in a shortened form, which is a direct violation of the international trademark laws that most countries noadays have adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that you are using M$ to indicate Microsoft. What does 'passing off' mean ? You're saying that I can't refer to ANY company unless I type the name in full ? Can I say Coke ? Can I say Mac ? David Wulff wrote: I had already agreed that with your specific example I would not take it anymore and would accept that you were correct until I can find time to research it.\ Had you ? I thought *I'd* said I would assume I was wrong as you had researched it and I obviously needed to. David Wulff wrote: If Microsoft had not initially come down on the charity, then they themselves would be breaking the law. How ? David Wulff wrote: As soon as the formalities were over with, Microsoft stopped legal proceedings and put together a more-than-resonable deal with the charity/ies involved. AFTER the whole thing became a PR disaster, they did something, did they ? David Wulff wrote: I believe that many European countries (possibly including the UK), you have the right under law to reverse engineer any computer software for the purposes of education. Really ? That kind of sucks. David Wulff wrote: All it takes is one person to tell them that they "suspect" the software "could" be unlicensed, and they have full responsibility if the product changes hands. I understand that, but what would be reasonable when the auction has three days to go is to give me 24 hours notice of their suspicion, suspend my ability to contact my bidders ( so I can't make the deal go ahead outside of ebay ) and let me respond. David Wulff wrote: Your statement about the DVD's is shocking to me. I would suspect that they took due note of it and took appropriate action, regardlessly of how stupidly they seem to have worded the response. Once you have notified them of the posibility they are fully liable if the transaction goes ahead. I find it very hard to believe that a company like that would willingly put themselves at risk. They explicitly told me that they would only look into it if the people who owned copyright for the movie cont
****Christian Graus wrote: What does 'passing off' mean ? Passing off a trademark as another mark, or (I believe) vice versa too. It doesn't just apply to trademarks, but basically anything that an individual (remember that a company is legally an individual person) can show they have commercial rights to. A mark doesn't necessarily have to be registered, though it helps if you want to make a claim against another use of the mark. ****Christian Graus wrote: You're saying that I can't refer to ANY company unless I type the name in full ? Can I say Coke ? Can I say Mac ? a) yes, b) no, c) possibly (I think from memory that is a trademark or service mark). With the kind of use you've used here (as in inside messages on The Code Project) I doubt it would be followed up because the companies involved would be able to claim ignorance through impracticality should anyone file a complaint against them. If you published an article in a journal, however, and used M$ or $un then they would likely come down on you like a ton of bricks unless you can prove it is a work of satire or similar. "Coke" would be a difficult one because it has become synchronous with pretty much any cola drink, much like Hoover and vacuum. ****Christian Graus wrote: Had you ? I thought *I'd* said I would assume I was wrong as you had researched it and I obviously needed to. We met half way. I said that I haven't got the time at the moment to do all the research something like that would require, so I would take your word that you knew what you were talking about. ****Christian Graus wrote: How ? Because it is the trademark holders legal obligation to enforce propper use of the mark. A mark (service or trade) is not like a patent where the holder can choose not to prevent the misuse of the covered material. ****Christian Graus wrote: AFTER the whole thing became a PR disaster, they did something, did they ? AFAIK, yes they did. They arranged for cheap bulk license for the OS. There have been so many cases of your "charity" example though (and of course every time it happens the media go wild for the start but 'forget' the resolution - dare I say FUD), we may be thinking of different specific examples, though it wont be hard to find common ground here. ****Christia