Jump to content

Gollum

BST Users
  • Posts

    1,902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Converted

  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Fishin'
  • What I do for a living:
    Patents

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Actually, I think there is a #8 to add to the list #8 People that don't understand statistics or read before posting (98.4%).
  2. That's a good example Ratty. I would say there are two reasons for it. The first is that if it is a copyright case, the Hab's and the Gibbs would have to be identical in look, down to the exact same paint scheme. There may be a few of those that are the same, which leads me to point number 2. At some point it just isn't worth it to sue, even if your copyright is infringed. While I don't have exact numbers, I doubt any of the tremendously talented professional builders on this site are turning incredible profits on their plugs. I may be wrong. But, say our esteemed plug builders turn $100k/year in profits (Gibbs and Hab's (RIP)) and it would cost each of them $50k to litigate the issue. In the end, the winner would probably make $20k more per year. Is it really worth it to sue? Detente may be the best profit maximizing strategy. Who knows, maybe every once in a while you can find a dude that likes to fish more than he likes to be a lawyer. A lawyer's job is ideas and words, that is true. But, if they don't have any value, why would you hire him to solve your problem? I bet a lot of lawyers feel like their job is pumping ****thouses too. I'm with you on that AH! And the difference in quality would be excellent evidence that consumers wouldn't confuse them.
  3. Not true. You don't have to register a copyright to claim a copyright. All you have to do is say that something is copyrighted. You only have to register a copyright if you want to sue on the copyright.
  4. Yes and no Mokes. You can't spell "Spookster" without "Spook" which is probably their trade name for the product. That's why you get in trouble. It's an issue of customer confusion. If (and I'm not saying this is the case) Afterhours got people to buy his lures because they thought the "Spookster" was made by the same people that made the "Spook," there may be trademark infringement. The reason it would get so expensive is because you'd have to do a number of market surveys to determine whether the public associated the name "spook" with Pradco and whether they could tell the "Spookster" apart from the "spook." That takes a lot of time and money, plus litigation.
  5. Probably good advice. But, you never know. You might have an intellectual property lawyer running around on the site...
  6. Scooby, PM me. You'll have more difficulty with the name of the lure (spooksters vs. spooks) than you will with the look and feel of the lure. Under copyright law, unless you have exactly copied the lure's look (i.e., paint etc.) you can copy the lure to your hearts content. You can even sell it. Copyrights cover how things look. Trademarks cover the names of products (spooksters vs. spooks). Patents cover how things work. They have no protection on the way they wire their lure with a copyright. They can only have protection for that through a patent. If you copied their exact paint scheme, you'll have a problem. If you make your lure in a way that infringes a patent, you'll have a problem. If you get a cease and desist letter, some jackass lawyer is probably just trying to scare you. Lots of lawyers use it as a tactic to get people to do what they want them to do without having to go to the expense of suing (which the company cannot usually afford to do).
  7. FWW - Do you know something that the rest of us don't? I've got the same problem as RR.
  8. The ACORN stings in Baltimore were illegal too based on Maryland state law.
  9. That's not actually true. Individual states require people to get auto insurance, which they can do under their police power. The Federal government has never, even under the commerce power, been able to require anyone to buy any kind of insurance. There's a difference because each government entity has different Constitutional powers.
  10. Another vote for Sparky's. We had them cook up a bunch of spanish mackerel last week and they did a GREAT job.
  11. Actually the goatees/beards is only a rule for missionaries and students at BYU. Otherwise, Mormons can have goatees/beards.
  12. Why should BYU drop their ambitions to participate in big time college sports? They have had the same honor code since the school was founded and they have done pretty well for themselves in that time, particularly in the last 25 years or so. Maybe Villanova, Stanford, and Notre Dame should give up their ambitions to play big time college sports because their grade requirements are too high for any elite athlete to ever go to those schools.
  13. You'll find exactly what I said, if you research it. Part of the Honor Code is that everyone has an affirmative duty to report any violations of the Honor Code that they are aware of. If you don't, you are also subject to an Honor Code violation and you can also be kicked out of school. It's very possible that he reported himself, that happens pretty frequently. It's possible that the girl reported him. Otherwise, someone else found out about it and had to report it. EDIT - the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Davies reported himself to the school for the violation.
×
×
  • Create New...