Randy, thank you for the information. I hope the list will put up
with a few questions resulting from your last post (I hope you will,
too).
>> . . . if BNSF does not manufacture scale models it does not
control that use <<
> That is not true. Coke and John Deere aren't in the toy business.
Athearn had to sign licensing agreements to manufacture Deere
trainsets. <
Athearn willing signed to prevent confrontation or "had to" sign
under clear stipulations of the law?
>> Some marks are not UP's. For example, CGW logos are not under UP
auspices because it can be demonstrated the logo is not used to
identify UP in today's transportation marketplace . . . <<
> But you have forgotten it is still their personal property and
subject to loads of case law dealing with personal property rights.
It's just not about copyright and trademark law or a yahoogroup
interpretation. <
If trademarks are personal property, what is the purpose of trademark
law and copyright law? Or, is it the case once well-defined areas of
law have, with time, merged, mucking up simple understanding of these
issues for lay people such as myself? Is personal property law like a
blanket; it covers nearly all of the body, but trademark and
copyright "toes" stick out from under?
> 3. If you own intellectual property (IP) you must uniformly
administer the management of that IP. You must treat everyone, and
every mark, the same. What's good for one is good for another. No
special treatment. And you can't claim something you don't own as
yours. <
Well, yes. Is the failure to manage a trademark a form of management?
That is, does the UP control trademarks of predecessor roads? For
decades it has made no moves to do so. Does that not mean something
legally? Or, are you saying, UP is now moving to control its current-
day trademarks as well as those of the past, that is, treating all
the same, under the same policy umbrella?
> No one has to surrender their tooling. I saw this idea on the other
lists. And it just ain't so. <
I would feel much better about this if you say you have read lately
UP's terms for licensing. It has been some time since I've done so.
In the age of Enron and corporate practices that engineer multi-
million dollar golden parachutes as well as many other scurrilous
practices, many common citizens just are not trusting. I am one of
those.
>> The question remains: What does Union Pacific own, and does it own
all that it claims? As I understand it, these questions do not have
clear answers. <<
> I wholeheartedly agree. They have laid claim to logos that adorned
the Mayflower. 1800+ prior roads. I asked them whether they even had a
list of those roads. They don't. And lots of that art would be public
domain. <
I repeat, in the age of Enron and scurrilous corporate
practices. . . .
>> I do not argue that UP can and should protect and control that
which belongs to it. My argument is that UP should not lay claim to
those things it does not own. That is the issue. <<
> I agree. That and audited financials from cottage industries are the
issues. <
Ah, yes. I will not submit to the invasive, intrusive "inquisition"
of my personal affairs that UP required last I read its licensing
requirements. I cannot do it. The makeup of my personality will not
allow it. Am I the only owner of a cottage industry who will not
submit to a proctology exam performed by UP agents?
Union Pacific's demands somehow remind me of good King George's
quartering policies along the eastern seaboard some years ago. It was
an imposition not to be tolerated.
>> UP appears to be making claims of ownership to things it does not
own. To that person who makes signs uncopyrighted by UP, little good
it will do him when UP lays claim to such and defends same in court.
The little guy likely is destroyed. <<
> Wrong theory. They can't lay claim after the fact. "Oh, and by the
way we want a royalty for the signs along the ROW." If that sign
doesn't have UP logo on it, make it. <
So, copyright law not to say personal property law has nothing to say
about structures, signs and other such items designed and built by
railroad employees? UP certainly is laying claim after the fact when
it comes to fallen flag logos which previously it has shown no
interest in. Or, again, are we talking only trademark law. But,
trademark law falls under personal property law, and. . . .
Almost as much as what you say, I appreciate how you say it. Thank
you for your politeness.
Brian Chapman
Granger Roads
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/8ZCslB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BRHSlist/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BRHSlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|