Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 17th, 2017, 06:49am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 50252 times)
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #660 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:16pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:12pm, Katterfelto wrote:
My brain hurts! rolleyes


You should have seen what I went through.....
Brain hurts just trying to remember all this stuff..
I've tried to forget mostly but I realised that it was 10 years ago.
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:18pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #661 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:27pm »

Is there any way we can get ignore buttons? We've had to wade through way more of this bullsh!t than any healthy person should ever have to deal with. This lunatic is unreachable through reason, humiliation, gypsy curses, good examples, even nuclear attack probably. If it were not so heartbreakingly sad, it would be awesome to behold.
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #662 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:36pm »

Just off the top of my head I can think of a reason I would give the lawfirm for waiting two years before coming out to defend the copyrighted material posted in the isaaccaret fortune city site. I would have to argue it was a fictitious story and the created material was meant to be reproduced in its entirety to promote the "meme" effect of this story.. To spread it as far as it could reach.

But now that the design and creative work has been utilised to such a degree as to be almost taken over by AW to merchandise their products.. Defense is in order..
Just a suggestion in case it fits smiley

User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #663 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:45pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:36pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Just off the top of my head I can think of a reason I would give the lawfirm for waiting two years before coming out to defend the copyrighted material posted in the isaaccaret fortune city site. I would have to argue it was a fictitious story and the created material was meant to be reproduced in its entirety to promote the "meme" effect of this story.. To spread it as far as it could reach.

But now that the design and creative work has been utilised to such a degree as to be almost taken over by AW to merchandise their products.. Defense is in order..
Just a suggestion in case it fits smiley

I'll probably regret this. rolleyes But it seems like baiting to me. Dangle an idea, image, etc. as free and wait for someone to possibly use/gain from it. Then jump in to get a piece of the pie after they did all the real work.
Opportunists for sure but with forethought?
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #664 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:45pm, Katterfelto wrote:
I'll probably regret this. rolleyes But it seems like baiting to me. Dangle an idea, image, etc. as free and wait for someone to possibly use/gain from it. Then jump in to get a piece of the pie after they did all the real work.
Opportunists for sure but with forethought?


This is all hypothetical so I'm just throwing my two-cents into a totally imaginary senerio. But suppose the purpose of this isaaccaret fortune city story was described in the defense. The purpose would be something other than product or related to marketing.

The use then of the material for profit by AW/Dell, could not have been reasonably expected and is NOW being stopped at the point of where it has become apparent they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain.
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2009, 7:56pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #665 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:01pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
The use then of the material for profit by AW/Dell, could not have been reasonably expected and is NOW being stopped at the point of where it has become apparent they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain.

Full use and monetary gain would not be easy to prove. It's clearly not full use. Are they going to question purchasers of AW/Dell hardware to determine that LAP elements influenced sales. That's a blackhole.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #666 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:22pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:01pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Full use and monetary gain would not be easy to prove. It's clearly not full use. Are they going to question purchasers of AW/Dell hardware to determine that LAP elements influenced sales. That's a blackhole.


Not in copyright law, it sure isn't. A company using your creative work to market their product is considered serious copyright infringement. Serious enough to warrent seizure of the products once the lawsuit is served and a bond put in place by the plaintiff's attorneys.... if necessary..

But in a situation like this, the insurance companies of AW and affiliates would be hiring IPR lawyers who will call the shots on how the case is defended and they will insist the situation is not jephordized by selling the product through its chain of distribution.... It's serious stuff..
So settlement for rights of the use of the material as quickly as possible would be the reasonable solution than lots of counter claims and delays.
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:30pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #667 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:26pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
...they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain

Sorry to barge into this close knit discussion, but, as I really respect all of the contributors here save one or two, could anyone possibly answer me this:

Does anyone here believe that the LAP designs on the inside computer case and Alien writing actually ATTRACTS MORE PAYING CUSTOMERS to these expensive and sophisticated computers?

Surely, the brightly lit AW/DELL Alien Head is the best known iconic design defining the AW marque, but who in that corporation would even suggest that adding some obscure, lesser known, and not all that publicly accepted stylized writing/diagrams would add ONE IOTA to the selling of more AW machines?

I am not attempting to argue a profit motive in the legal pissing contest you all are having, but one of common sense in the advertising and promotion of an existing well-known brand.

Thanks guys.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #668 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:33pm »

Even if it was the ulgiest design in the world you created and it turned people off.. if AW takes it and stamps it into a line of a computer they sell without your permission you have a serious (and potentially very profitable) copyright infringement case to defend.
« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2009, 04:38am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #669 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:41pm »

Maybe the aliens in one of those drones abducted Tomi and replaced her with Robot Tomi.

This has got to be the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. It is pathetic. The lap is fake. No one has sued. End of story. Arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is less moronic.
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #670 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 8:58pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:33pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Even if it was the ulgiest design in the world you created and it turned people off.. if AW takes it and stamps it into a line of a computer they sell without your permission you have a serious (and potenially very profitable) copyright infringement case to defend.

When does the question of monetary gain and settlement come into play? I understand ugly, beauty, etc. don't matter. But when it comes to a cash award $$$. Does there not have to be realistic numbers presented that show how much income AW/Dell or however brought in as a result of the use? How is this determined? If it was the greatest concept in the world but not a penny was gained, what would be the settlement?
Is there cash to be gained by just the using of it or does it have to have profitted the user?
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #671 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 9:46pm »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #672 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 9:59pm »

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 2:00pm, Masker33 wrote:
I doubt Dell/Alienware has a thing to worry about. The LAP design segments are placed in very good places.

Silence is golden in some cases.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #673 on: Oct 15th, 2009, 04:13am »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:58pm, Katterfelto wrote:
When does the question of monetary gain and settlement come into play? I understand ugly, beauty, etc. don't matter. But when it comes to a cash award $$$. Does there not have to be realistic numbers presented that show how much income AW/Dell or however brought in as a result of the use? How is this determined? If it was the greatest concept in the world but not a penny was gained, what would be the settlement?
Is there cash to be gained by just the using of it or does it have to have profitted the user?


Drawing on what I learned and not being a lawyer, I'll try to answer that best I can. They (AW) are incorporating this design substancially into their marketing theme now. They are placing it on their product line that they sell as well.

Hypothetical supposition here: We don't know the purpose of the Isaaccaret at fortune city website either but over time its purpose has clearly not been for profit.

However, the initial investment by the group who created this fictitious story released on the internet must have been substancial. Damages, could be claimed in this case. IMO.

Because by having to defend against the blatant commercialisation of this work, the underlying secrecy which was the foundation of the story on Isaaccaret has been sacraficed. That would just be one count of damages claimed. An IPR lawyer would know how to frame as many claims of damage for the plaintiff as possible as well as addressing the revenue aspect of the products being sold.

There is underlying law which helps determine the degree of value from years of previous cases of similiar use of copyrighted material being used to market a product to draw determination from, that AW would have to waste time arguing against.

AW's investment in the goods produced and in their distribution network with these contended products and their marketing profile would be in jephordy until this is settled. The plaintiffs lawyers would maximise figures on the initial damages and revenues claimed and the final settlement figures would be reduced probably in the compromise to settlement. JMO here, but this is the way they usually go when products and deep pockets are involved.

« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2009, 05:31am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #674 on: Oct 15th, 2009, 04:23am »

Just to add a bit more insight.. Copyright infringment, in a product marketing and distribution case, could also be words.

Suppose someone writes a story or an article with several paragraphs that are picked up and used by a manufacturer on their product line and to market their product line, without being changed substancially first. That is the key..

The authors words were copied and used. This is infringement. If, on the other hand, the authors description was used but with different words or wording changed substancially, then this is not infringement.
« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2009, 04:42am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls