You are an asshat. You may have specifically asked for background material, but one quick hit of the google bong gave me a highly informative set of results on this interesting subject. You are a troll, and should be treated as such.
dude, i so know what you are saying - I used to be a heavy smoker for many, many years, and my air consumption is - even today - simply staggering. I refuse however, to break up a group, so I usually inform the dive leader that i'll probably chew through my air in about 30 to 45 minutes, and will break off early.
Don't drink and drive. Its stupid, immature and kills people. people that DUI are selfish dumbass bastards that should have their license irrevokably taken away at once.
I detest your unit of measurement - it is *so* US-Centric. Why not use a proper unit of measurement, such as "x" Gutenbergs or something. Also, *much* more open source friendly dude....
"It does not look like the usual linux friendly configure/make/make install"
You seem to confuse "Linux Friendly" with "I only compile from source". You rpersonal ideology and computing habits aside, those two are not the same thing.
You are an idiot. "Beta" does not mean "We can do what the hell we want and delete all your data". Beta means "We have tested this application to the best of our in-house abillities, and now need wider input from a wider audience." Implied in the concept of Beta testing is the assumption that no catastrophic bugs will hit you. These have been burned out in Alpha. *especially* an organisation like Google should have caught such a simple issue.
I am not getting into the "this is cool" or "this is evil" argument - I won't use it as I don't have a need for it, but my (already low) estimation for Google as a Software Development and publishing house has just sunk a little deeper. They do a relatively cool searchengine, but their published software sucks.
I am highly familiar with corporate marketing, and no - I am not mad at anybody. I was just pointing out the flaws in the OP's argument. However, please look up defintion of vapourware, and get back to me.
"Give them a break, if I was working on something and people kept annoying me about it, I'd be sure as hell tempted to quit and give them the finger."
If I was them, I'd *first* do all the legal stuff, then decide what to release, *then* announce and release it at the same time. Sun, instead, has opted to announce, and then announce again, and keep that up for a year or so, then announce again, then release some code that isn't really Open Solaris, and then get some devs to "respond furiously" about being bugged for code that was promised over a year ago, but nobody has really yet seen.
Well, we did try the "limiting the game" option, but it did not work. Moreover, we are not lying to him, but together with the school staff, we came to the conclusion that it is easier for him to accept that something broke then it is to be denied playing a game
OIbviously, a single post on slashdot is all you need to determine our parenting skills, and our parent-child relationship dynamic. If this would come from - say - a respectable source, maybe I would be worried. If you actually had anything to say about the subject matter (computers make you stupid) I'd maybe have given you some credence. Instead, this is just a knee-jerk reaction, and obvious proof of how much time you spent behind computers in your own childhood
My 5 year old son has consistently been called "best in class" and "brilliant student" by his schools' staff - obviously to my pride and joy;-) - being an IT guy, a gamer, as well as a dad, I have always taken a relaxed attitude towards pc use and gameplay. He never really played anything too challenging or involving - a bit of tuxracer, a bit of sonic, etc. Until a few weeks ago, when some of his schoolfriends started playing some more involving games, and he wanted to keep up. "Bionicles" was duly installed, and away he went.
We are now 2 weeks later, and my wife and I just - like, 30 mins ago - finished a discussion about how to remove the game from the pc whilst making it look like an accident.... His schoolwork has plummeted, his teachers are really upset - his concentration is just gone, and he isn't interested in playing, arts, crafts, friends or schoolwork. He is a completely different boy, and its really worrying us.
Make of it what you will, but this gave me a first-hand look at the whole issue, and has me pretty disturbed.
I know you do this for a living - you are a patent laywer or somesuch. Your string of postings is not a good advertisement for your business. The clause you refer to simply states that a deep search for prior usage is not demanded from the examiner during the ex-parte search, basically because that would be an unrealistic expectation. This clause, combined with the fact that an applicant is supposed to declare to be original author if the mark in question simply means the system is leaky, but pretty much workable.
However, the clause you quoted does not relieve the examiner from his due-dilligence duties, so if easy to verify evidence is shoved in his face, he is better off considering it: due dilligence. Having sent the mails, combined with the fact that the applicant should have declared orignial ownership or authorship would quickly make this an issue of fraud, thus leading us to clause 719
Irrespective of whether this will work or not, I am already enjoying the idea of the examining attorney wandering in on a peaceful monday morning, whistling, gently placing his briefcase and lunchbox on his desk. He sits down, had a sip of coffee, briefly looks out of the window, hears the birds sing, observes the sunshine, and - damm! his secretary is wearing that short skirt again! - A deep sigh of contentment escapes his lips as he reclines in his custom Herman Miller Aeron.
He leans forward, and totally at peace with himself, his life, his job, and the world, he pulls the next case off the stack. "ahh", he says to himself, "application 76627578. some arcade thingamajig. Should be a piece of cake". And as he opens the file, angry hordes of arcade freaks, open source afficionados, RMS wannabees, claims, counter claims, counter-counter claims, pseudo-laywers, rednecks with a ripoff cmam cabinet! they all come falling from the file, screaming for his attention, josling over eachother, shouting! Shoving! FALLING! SPILLING OVER HIS DESK!
The utter shock on his face should be worth millions, and we must find a way to rig a webcam into his office, so all can see this moment live on the Internet.
That is a very misleading post. The stuff you refer to is acutally a post-examination process, and what you want to do is get to the review during or before the review process. Which is what I did. There are numerous places where in the regulations that make this thing fall over, and this is a good a place to start as any. There are many others though.
Point is, that while the examiner can claim to grant the marque in good faith if he is unaware of any existance of any connection - the mail I (and by now many others) have sent makes it clear to the examiner that there is no basis in trademark regulation to allow this marque to be approved. This shifts the burden of proof back to the applicant, something he would be hard pressed to do.
Well, I sent the following email to the trademark office. I suggest others do the same (and No, I did not use my slashdot account name as the "From" identity, I used my real name, and my real jobtitle (CEO of services and software firm)
From:
Date: Feb 21, 2005 09:25 AM
To: TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
Cc: lhagelshaw@aol.com, david.foley@ultracade.com
Subject: Trademark Application 76627578
CC: Lee Hagelshaw, Attorney of Record, David Foley, Applicant
Dear sirs,
I write to you with respect to trademark application 76627578 - "MAME
MULTIPLE ARCADE EMULATOR".
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am longstanding
user of a product that goes by the same name, sporting the same logo. I
can, however, assure you that as far as I am aware, there is no
affiliation between the original authors of MAME, and the individual or
organisation attempting to trademark this name and logo.
You may wish to note that the marque in question appears to have been
designed by an unrelated individual, and appears to have been under
copyright since 2003. I refer you to
http://www.oscarcontrols.com/gallery01.htm
Please note the following limited usage statement on the quoted page:
"THE ABOVE DOWNLOADABLE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE
LIMITED PURPOSE FOR PERSONAL PRINTING AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED NOR
COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART NOR LOANED OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED TO ANY
THIRD PARTY, NOR USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM
OSCAR CONTROLS."
Clearly, the quoted marque application seems to violate these terms of
usage.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, said logo has been in use, for
many years, in a commercial manner in many forms. First of all, I would
like to inform you that at http://www.mamemarquees.com/ the marque
itself is for sale in the form of stick-on marquees. mamemarquees.com is
one of many sites selling a similar service. Moreover, many sites, such
as http://www.mameworld.com rely in part on the MAME marque for
advertisement revenue. In other words, there is widespread - although
low-level - commercial use of the MAME marque, in logo as well as text
form.
In closing, I would like to inform you that MAME is a so-called "Open
Source" project, meaning that the project, the work performed by this
project, and any arts, intellectual properties, and other related
results of productive work has mainly been performed by individuals on a
volunteer basis. These people volunteer their time, skills, and
knowledge out of passion for what they do, and make their core work -
The MAME application suite - available free of charge, in source code
form, for all to use.
This is very similar to making the work available within the public
domain, but not exactly, since Open Source Software typically places
some obligations onto the user in terms of under what circumstances the
work may be re-distributed. This is to protect the work from being
"stolen". More information about open source software is available at
http://www.opensource.org/ The precise license terms of the MAME body of
work can be found here: http://www.mame.net/readme.html
I trust to have given you plenty of information to assist in your
handling of the stated application, and am sure that in the face of the
information provided to you by myself, and no doubt others, that the
said application will be duly rejected. Should you require any
adittional information or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Plenty of mails like this will remove any excuse they would have in actually granting the trademark. Please be sure to include both the lawyer as well as the applicant in the mail.
And openxchange doesn't fit the bill because....? There is already a previous relationship that is pretty strong (SUSE, as you well know), a good product, that has seen some serious market usage, and a very solid, functionally complete featureset i.e. everything that is there is there for a good reason, minimal bloat. It is also Open Source.
Seems to me that openxchange does all the stuff you list, and more. Except that openexchange also potentially competes with edirectory, Ifolder, Iprint, and some of the other stuff coming from Novell. Maybe I am wrong, please correct me.
Wherever possible we go with centralised authorisation, and we use PAM wherever possible. When this isn't possible, like, for example in the case of the Citrix client, we hack our way around it (in this case by making Citrix learn about PAM)
Slashdot Mirror
I would not be too proud of that statistic - it may just mean people find it boring....
You are an asshat. You may have specifically asked for background material, but one quick hit of the google bong gave me a highly informative set of results on this interesting subject. You are a troll, and should be treated as such.
dude, i so know what you are saying - I used to be a heavy smoker for many, many years, and my air consumption is - even today - simply staggering. I refuse however, to break up a group, so I usually inform the dive leader that i'll probably chew through my air in about 30 to 45 minutes, and will break off early.
come on Leroy - stop complaining - after all you only have yourself to blame.....
Don't drink and drive. Its stupid, immature and kills people. people that DUI are selfish dumbass bastards that should have their license irrevokably taken away at once.
I detest your unit of measurement - it is *so* US-Centric. Why not use a proper unit of measurement, such as "x" Gutenbergs or something. Also, *much* more open source friendly dude....
well, i remain sceptical, but found a reference to the CEO at Forbes magazine - http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0228/062_print.h tml and seems legit....
"It does not look like the usual linux friendly configure/make/make install" You seem to confuse "Linux Friendly" with "I only compile from source". You rpersonal ideology and computing habits aside, those two are not the same thing.
interesting - even when you go past the "cant view bugs from slashdot" stuff, it seems access to this bugreport has been denied. Yay open source!
You are an idiot. "Beta" does not mean "We can do what the hell we want and delete all your data". Beta means "We have tested this application to the best of our in-house abillities, and now need wider input from a wider audience." Implied in the concept of Beta testing is the assumption that no catastrophic bugs will hit you. These have been burned out in Alpha. *especially* an organisation like Google should have caught such a simple issue.
I am not getting into the "this is cool" or "this is evil" argument - I won't use it as I don't have a need for it, but my (already low) estimation for Google as a Software Development and publishing house has just sunk a little deeper. They do a relatively cool searchengine, but their published software sucks.
I am highly familiar with corporate marketing, and no - I am not mad at anybody. I was just pointing out the flaws in the OP's argument. However, please look up defintion of vapourware, and get back to me.
"Give them a break, if I was working on something and people kept annoying me about it, I'd be sure as hell tempted to quit and give them the finger."
If I was them, I'd *first* do all the legal stuff, then decide what to release, *then* announce and release it at the same time. Sun, instead, has opted to announce, and then announce again, and keep that up for a year or so, then announce again, then release some code that isn't really Open Solaris, and then get some devs to "respond furiously" about being bugged for code that was promised over a year ago, but nobody has really yet seen.
yeah - and as far as "development" of "early GDM" goes - I placed KDM way up high in my init.d long ago....
He is 5. read the post, dude. His friends dads' usually don't touch the computers in my house.
Well, we did try the "limiting the game" option, but it did not work. Moreover, we are not lying to him, but together with the school staff, we came to the conclusion that it is easier for him to accept that something broke then it is to be denied playing a game
OIbviously, a single post on slashdot is all you need to determine our parenting skills, and our parent-child relationship dynamic. If this would come from - say - a respectable source, maybe I would be worried. If you actually had anything to say about the subject matter (computers make you stupid) I'd maybe have given you some credence. Instead, this is just a knee-jerk reaction, and obvious proof of how much time you spent behind computers in your own childhood
My 5 year old son has consistently been called "best in class" and "brilliant student" by his schools' staff - obviously to my pride and joy ;-) - being an IT guy, a gamer, as well as a dad, I have always taken a relaxed attitude towards pc use and gameplay. He never really played anything too challenging or involving - a bit of tuxracer, a bit of sonic, etc. Until a few weeks ago, when some of his schoolfriends started playing some more involving games, and he wanted to keep up. "Bionicles" was duly installed, and away he went.
We are now 2 weeks later, and my wife and I just - like, 30 mins ago - finished a discussion about how to remove the game from the pc whilst making it look like an accident.... His schoolwork has plummeted, his teachers are really upset - his concentration is just gone, and he isn't interested in playing, arts, crafts, friends or schoolwork. He is a completely different boy, and its really worrying us.
Make of it what you will, but this gave me a first-hand look at the whole issue, and has me pretty disturbed.
dude, that is very cool -- i did not know it did that
If you want out-of-the-box, works-for-my-parents you should try SUSE 9.2 pro
Obligatory "farside" caption: "They knew they had the telescope pointed in the right direction, but forgot to remove the lenscap"
I know you do this for a living - you are a patent laywer or somesuch. Your string of postings is not a good advertisement for your business. The clause you refer to simply states that a deep search for prior usage is not demanded from the examiner during the ex-parte search, basically because that would be an unrealistic expectation. This clause, combined with the fact that an applicant is supposed to declare to be original author if the mark in question simply means the system is leaky, but pretty much workable.
However, the clause you quoted does not relieve the examiner from his due-dilligence duties, so if easy to verify evidence is shoved in his face, he is better off considering it: due dilligence. Having sent the mails, combined with the fact that the applicant should have declared orignial ownership or authorship would quickly make this an issue of fraud, thus leading us to clause 719
Irrespective of whether this will work or not, I am already enjoying the idea of the examining attorney wandering in on a peaceful monday morning, whistling, gently placing his briefcase and lunchbox on his desk. He sits down, had a sip of coffee, briefly looks out of the window, hears the birds sing, observes the sunshine, and - damm! his secretary is wearing that short skirt again! - A deep sigh of contentment escapes his lips as he reclines in his custom Herman Miller Aeron.
He leans forward, and totally at peace with himself, his life, his job, and the world, he pulls the next case off the stack. "ahh", he says to himself, "application 76627578. some arcade thingamajig. Should be a piece of cake". And as he opens the file, angry hordes of arcade freaks, open source afficionados, RMS wannabees, claims, counter claims, counter-counter claims, pseudo-laywers, rednecks with a ripoff cmam cabinet! they all come falling from the file, screaming for his attention, josling over eachother, shouting! Shoving! FALLING! SPILLING OVER HIS DESK!
The utter shock on his face should be worth millions, and we must find a way to rig a webcam into his office, so all can see this moment live on the Internet.
Just my 2c
That is a very misleading post. The stuff you refer to is acutally a post-examination process, and what you want to do is get to the review during or before the review process. Which is what I did. There are numerous places where in the regulations that make this thing fall over, and this is a good a place to start as any. There are many others though.
Point is, that while the examiner can claim to grant the marque in good faith if he is unaware of any existance of any connection - the mail I (and by now many others) have sent makes it clear to the examiner that there is no basis in trademark regulation to allow this marque to be approved. This shifts the burden of proof back to the applicant, something he would be hard pressed to do.
Plenty of mails like this will remove any excuse they would have in actually granting the trademark. Please be sure to include both the lawyer as well as the applicant in the mail.
And openxchange doesn't fit the bill because....? There is already a previous relationship that is pretty strong (SUSE, as you well know), a good product, that has seen some serious market usage, and a very solid, functionally complete featureset i.e. everything that is there is there for a good reason, minimal bloat. It is also Open Source.
Seems to me that openxchange does all the stuff you list, and more. Except that openexchange also potentially competes with edirectory, Ifolder, Iprint, and some of the other stuff coming from Novell. Maybe I am wrong, please correct me.
Wherever possible we go with centralised authorisation, and we use PAM wherever possible. When this isn't possible, like, for example in the case of the Citrix client, we hack our way around it (in this case by making Citrix learn about PAM)