Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 115901" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: New Midas M32 Console</p><p></p><p></p><p>Perhaps you were not listening, but as I said before, I no longer have an economic interest in this. My patent was assigned, other stuff was work for hire. So I have no personal damages or legal basis to pursue, even if I was so inclined. (now you with all your defamatory accusations and false statements attributed to me might be another matter, but relax this kind of attack is all to common on the WWW, and I am not litigious, just annoyed).. </p><p></p><p>While I have my strong opinions, no I am not arbiter for right and wrong here. That is more what the forum community thinks is right and wrong. Surely not a monotonic uniform belief system, as evidenced by your very aggressive arguments for your viewpoint as a (very new) member here. </p><p></p><p>Perhaps a poll might determine if I am an isolated outlier, or if these are widely held beliefs among experienced professionals here. Of course a subjective belief being widely held does not mean that it is correct, and your "legal" centric arguments have helped refine and inform that understanding (hopefully). Just like you characterize copying as "competition", I would characterize this ex post facto management of brand perception is "marketing" and it does influence the value of that intangible asset (aka IP). </p><p></p><p>Actually no, and I apologize if he is taking this personally. That is not my intent. I speak only about the company's (past) behavior. It seems I am spending more time defending myself against your creative interpretations of my position. </p><p></p><p>I have demonstrated my priority in the two cases that personally involved me. I never called the small mixer an "illegal" copy, and now the patented technology was later determined by a court to be legal use. Even if I do not agree, I accept that court ruling. </p><p></p><p>A legal copy does not mean that it isn't a copy, only that it is legal. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Again I am not attacking the man (I have already been warned privately about slander). I am addressing a company's past behavior. In fact I am not attacking this behavior unilaterally, but pushing back against an IMO too rosy re-characterization of that period in time. I along with many here lived through the period so already have an understanding and strong opinions based on our own personal experience. I also understand the difficulty of separating personal behavior from from corporate behavior for a wholly owned company. </p><p></p><p>Laws and what is legal behavior only covers a fairly narrow segment of human behavior with very high standards of proof. Running a business involves more than just avoiding prosecution or unfavorable court rulings, while the legal system and regulation only defines the extremes of acceptable corporate behavior. </p><p></p><p>I grow weary of your repeated rephrasing of my position, but even you have helped inform this discussion with your pedantry. </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 115901, member: 126"] Re: New Midas M32 Console Perhaps you were not listening, but as I said before, I no longer have an economic interest in this. My patent was assigned, other stuff was work for hire. So I have no personal damages or legal basis to pursue, even if I was so inclined. (now you with all your defamatory accusations and false statements attributed to me might be another matter, but relax this kind of attack is all to common on the WWW, and I am not litigious, just annoyed).. While I have my strong opinions, no I am not arbiter for right and wrong here. That is more what the forum community thinks is right and wrong. Surely not a monotonic uniform belief system, as evidenced by your very aggressive arguments for your viewpoint as a (very new) member here. Perhaps a poll might determine if I am an isolated outlier, or if these are widely held beliefs among experienced professionals here. Of course a subjective belief being widely held does not mean that it is correct, and your "legal" centric arguments have helped refine and inform that understanding (hopefully). Just like you characterize copying as "competition", I would characterize this ex post facto management of brand perception is "marketing" and it does influence the value of that intangible asset (aka IP). Actually no, and I apologize if he is taking this personally. That is not my intent. I speak only about the company's (past) behavior. It seems I am spending more time defending myself against your creative interpretations of my position. I have demonstrated my priority in the two cases that personally involved me. I never called the small mixer an "illegal" copy, and now the patented technology was later determined by a court to be legal use. Even if I do not agree, I accept that court ruling. A legal copy does not mean that it isn't a copy, only that it is legal. Again I am not attacking the man (I have already been warned privately about slander). I am addressing a company's past behavior. In fact I am not attacking this behavior unilaterally, but pushing back against an IMO too rosy re-characterization of that period in time. I along with many here lived through the period so already have an understanding and strong opinions based on our own personal experience. I also understand the difficulty of separating personal behavior from from corporate behavior for a wholly owned company. Laws and what is legal behavior only covers a fairly narrow segment of human behavior with very high standards of proof. Running a business involves more than just avoiding prosecution or unfavorable court rulings, while the legal system and regulation only defines the extremes of acceptable corporate behavior. I grow weary of your repeated rephrasing of my position, but even you have helped inform this discussion with your pedantry. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
