tale@its.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/23/89)
In some unknown article, someone writes: > Then they showed an example of The New Wave, a four-line error message > which took 3 lines to misdiagnose the problem, and reminded you that > this was, in fact, an error. Yup. Just like VMS... :-) In article <14020060@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: dd> I object to this use of an HP trademark (NewWave) for something unrelated dd> to our product and for a situation this disgusting. [So, why didn't you reference the article which you quoted? I believe that they are in the "friendly messages" subject. <435@laic.UUCP> had no mention of The New Wave or NewWave (tm).] I certainly hope you are saying this with mock sincerity. I would not be at all surprised if the original poster had never even heard of "NewWave". Secondly, "The New Wave" is not an infringement on "NewWave". Finally, if the two things are as disparate as you assert, then why care at all? Geesh. -- tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu
decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (02/24/89)
> In some unknown article, someone writes: > > Then they showed an example of The New Wave, a four-line error message > > which took 3 lines to misdiagnose the problem, and reminded you that > > this was, in fact, an error. Yup. Just like VMS... :-) > >In article <14020060@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: >dd> I object to this use of an HP trademark (NewWave) for something unrelated >dd> to our product and for a situation this disgusting. > > [So, why didn't you reference the article which you quoted? I believe > that they are in the "friendly messages" subject. <435@laic.UUCP> had > no mention of The New Wave or NewWave (tm).] The References: line in the article tells which article string this refers to, the Subject: line (which you said "was" the former subject in your article's Subject) tells the Subject of the article string. I had hoped this would be sufficient context, since most news reading programs are able to keep discussions together by subject. > I certainly hope you are saying this with mock sincerity. Yes, substantially mock. That is what the smiley face was for at the end of my article, which you did not quote. > I would not be at all surprised if the original poster had never even > heard of "NewWave". NewWave is an HP trademark for a user interface technology which is/was the subject of a highly-publicized court battle among Apple, Microsoft, and HP, which to my knowledge has not been resolved yet. Open Look is the name of a similar (not the same) technology provided by AT&T, whose user-interface products the original "unknown article" was describing. > Secondly, "The New Wave" is not an infringement on > "NewWave". Finally, if the two things are as disparate as you assert, > then why care at all? Geesh. I did not say it was an infringement, nor certainly do I plan to file suit against anyone. I said that I objected to the use of a similar-sounding word in conjunction with an highly obnoxious user interface. > tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu Dave