davidli@simvax.BITNET (System Manager) (07/13/87)
>I just got some bad news from Dave Addison about two of his programs, >Monopoly and Millebourne. ... >was a copyright infringment. So rather than argue, Dave agreed to spread >the (bad) news that all copies of his Monopoly and Millebourne are to be >erased. They now fall under the catagory of pirated software. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The poster of this message should have stopped at the word 'erased.' and left it at that. The software is NOT pirated, and the term does a disservice to all ST owners who downloaded or otherwise obtained the two programs in question. We haven't "pirated" anything -- Dave Addison simply made a mistake in programming too closely to the original. Of course, all users should remove the offending programs from their libraries. But PLEASE, don't use the word "pirated". It implies that WE have stolen a commercial program, and is incorrect terminology. -- Dave Meile davidli@simvax.bitnet Health Computer Sciences, University of Minnesota Box 511 UMHC, 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-3694
dragon@oliveb.UUCP (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) (07/14/87)
in article <8707131441.AA08574@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, davidli@simvax.BITNET (System Manager) says: > >>I just got some bad news from Dave Addison about two of his programs, >>Monopoly and Millebourne. ... >>was a copyright infringment. So rather than argue, Dave agreed to spread >>the (bad) news that all copies of his Monopoly and Millebourne are to be >>erased. They now fall under the catagory of pirated software. Here's something I picked off of the Amiga newsgroup: In article <3@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: About 5 years ago the copyright on Monopoly ran out. Monopoly is now in the public domain, and anyone who wants to can sell it. (Actually, maybe it was a patent. Regardless, it is now in the public domain.) Parker Brothers would love to have you think that it isn't so, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. -- Steven C. Den Beste Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA or CSNET) I remember it differently. I think Parker Brothers unsuccessfully sued the maker of "Anti-Monopoly" for _trademark_ infringement of the trademark "Monopoly", and the court made the (widely booed) decision that Parker Brothers had lost its "Monopoly" trademark due to not protecting it (I say "maybe".) and that the names "Monopoly" and "Parker Brothers" were no longer linked in the public mind (it was this part that drew the negative press, and I agree with the critics). This follows along the lines of saying "xeroxing" instead of "photo-copying"; as long as Xerox doesn't protest, they are allowing their trademark "Xerox" to enter the public domain. In their case, it's probably worth it, to have their corporate name so closely linked in teh public mind with photocopiers. This in no way invalidates Parker Brothers _copyright_ on the design of the board game Monopoly, and it is this right that they have apparently successfully enforced in this case. Note that, unlike trademarks, copyrights are very difficult to lose by neglect (roughly every 50 years you must renew a copyright, or at least reassert your claim to it, but the fact that a text is widely pirated in no way invalidates the original copyright, unlike the trademark case), so the copyright is a lot easier to enforce. Now that I've put in my $0.02, would someone with a legal education and experience in the trademark/copyright area like to step in and make the definitive statement? ;-) Kent, the man from xanth. -- Dean Brunette {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!dragon Olivetti Advanced Technology Center _____ _____ __|__ _____ 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd. | | _____| | | Cupertino, CA 95014 |_____| |_____| |__ |_____
toml@xrxns.UUCP (Tom Love) (07/14/87)
In article <2019@oliveb.UUCP>, dragon@oliveb.UUCP writes: > > This follows along the lines of saying "xeroxing" instead of "photo-copying"; > as long as Xerox doesn't protest, they are allowing their trademark "Xerox" to > enter the public domain. In their case, it's probably worth it, to have their > corporate name so closely linked in teh public mind with photocopiers. > > Dean Brunette {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!dragon god, i hate it when people spout corporate lines, but i must take a company stand here and differ with the above comment. xerox actively opposes casual use of the trademark "xerox" as a verb or in any other non-product-identifying context. it does this internally via wholesale execution of employees who abuse the trademark (just a joke), and externally as well (witness a letter to the editors of the NY Times when "xerox" was used as a verb in a NYT crossword puzzle a year or so ago (shame on you, eugene t. maleska)). the concept of a close link in the public mind is nice, but the thought of the japanese introducing "new, improved xerox machines" probably gives our board of directors heavy duty nightmares. ok, chet, back to the st discussion. tom love xerox edds leesburg, va 22075 seismo!rochester!rocksanne!xrxns!toml xns: toml:lsbg-egp/cad:xerox