On 3 Apr 2007 at 08:17, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
"It's a copyright violation *and* it's original research. Probably violates a patent too, if I looked closely enough."
And a trademark.
On 4/3/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
And a trademark.
Possibly a trademark, but not necessarily a trademark INFRINGEMENT, since trademarks do not protect against all uses of a term. Use of any trademark in an encyclopedia context is likely to be OK - except, possibly, those of other encyclopedias or reference works.
-Matt
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 at 08:17, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
"It's a copyright violation *and* it's original research. Probably violates a patent too, if I looked closely enough."
And a trademark.
The various manufacturers certainly own the trademarks for their respective products. I'm surprised that Guy is not arguing for trademark violation.
Ec
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:25:28 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The various manufacturers certainly own the trademarks for their respective products. I'm surprised that Guy is not arguing for trademark violation.
Why would I do that? We are not required to call a Ford Mondeo a Ford(R) Mondeo(TM) (All rights reserved).
I don't see how that is in any way related to reproducing in full a list compiled by someone using their own criteria.
Guy (JzG)