In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So where have I got this wrong? Is adding this sort of statement actually a "registration"
or are you saying that declaration of copyright is not sufficient to gain protection?
David, this is simple. When
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
In _all_ parts of the USA.
<< but does this make copyright protection
null and void if you *don't* register it? >>
No, you just can't pursue some legal solutions until after you register. So, if some
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:52:21 -
> "David Shepheard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And yes, by registerin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare
Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/8/2005 7:45:25 AM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>You
don't register things as copyright, you just declare them to
From: "Chris Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Hi Chris,
I've been struggling to follow you and Lee on this as you both seem to be
talking up
different points. After reading the following:
>
In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
one of Naughty Games's product include a PI that is actually licensed to
Beta Games but owned by Acme Games, and Naughty Games try to challenge this
in court? Who would be the plaintiff party in the lawsuit?
> Behalf Of David Shepheard
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 4:46 AM
> To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity
> (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
>
>
> From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:20:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
non-sensicle given a set of assumptions and then you ignore the
assumption.>>
No, it's non-sensical given that it makes NO sense that every type of trademark except non-logo, non-product line registered tra
Yes but when you said:
"By Chris' readings, product lines, product line names, logos, and
identifiying marks including trade dress would PI without declaration,
but any other type of trademark must be identified as PI to be PI. That
seems WAY arbitrary. Why would I need to declare the register
In a message dated 3/1/2005 2:22:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looking over the list, it seems pretty comprehensive. Given the
assumptions above in an example product, what would 'have to be
declared' if we assume that each of the below items is automatically
assumed to
The statement was that there are some types of PI that would have to be
marked. If we are assuming a particular interpretation of the quote
below where in the items not listed there have to be clearly identified
by the owner (as opposed to the standard interpretation where in this is
just a lis
In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:51:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of that list.. which peices in a work do you think would be
necessary that can't be covered by 'story' and 'thematic elements'?
Necessary? I'm confused by the question Avatar. Happy to chime in politel
Out of that list.. which peices in a work do you think would be
necessary that can't be covered by 'story' and 'thematic elements'?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:14:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not saying which interpretation of that line is ri
In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:14:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it
would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't
have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content
Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it
would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't
have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the
product would seem to be enough.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1
In a message dated 3/1/2005 12:58:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 1 says PI must be clearly identified to be such. This is the heart
of our disagreement.
Right, Weldon, and here's the problem I have with Chris' interpretation. The PI Definition says (with some inte
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Helton
> This is the definition of Product Identity that I have been
> using all along. You will notice that since it contains the
> phrase "and any other trademark or registered trademark
> clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the
17 matches
Mail list logo
