Gary Fong Album Software Trademark Infringement

[GARY FONG INC]

Glad i could help clear that up. As photographers in the internet age, we really need to be aware of intellectual properties law, and I hope this information is helpful to you.

[adirty1]

Originally Posted by awsilver

Your basically going after him for copying your UI and naming, and assuming you trademarked the term "autodrop" as well...so really has nothing to do with the actual scripting at all then, makes a lot more sense now.

yes that's right. It's the name.... and it looked just like the other software. there are a couple very good defences out there hopefully this guy can get a good lawyer. Which i am not going to go into because i only play a lawyer on tv.

now the thing i dont get is how you could go after some one for loss income when there was no gain to start with. I am not going to buy the actions in the first place but if some one is willing to give them to me than yes i am going to take it. However i wasnt going to buy it in the first place so Xcorp is out nothing..

[AjP]

oh wow, if I understand right.. you going after him just because of UI and naming is looks the same or close to your.. I thought he had stil your code, script.............

wow....................no more comments

[Ray]

So I guess if the guy would have made it look different, and not mentioned this guy's name like he did, it would have been all good.

[brad]

Yea, Ray.. the way I read this as someone created something like Fong's software and touted as "Just like (trademark), only this is free" or "This is a free version of Fong's (trademark)"

Both of which are Very Bad Ideas (tm) <-- Note trademark, please

[Ray]

I agree.. and they want him to pay for each 'loss' they theoretically incurred, under the threat of having to pay 3 times the amount if they go to court. Good way to fund a business I guess, a good lesson indeed

Originally Posted by adirty1

now the thing i dont get is how you could go after some one for loss encome when there was no gain to start with. I am not going to buy the actions in the first place but if some one is willing to give them to me than yes i am going to take it. However i wasnt going to buy it in the first place so Xcorp is out nothing..

[adirty1]

yeppers.


as stated by gary, "One thing I should add is that people wonder why I need to be so litigious. In this case as well as all prior trademark infringement cases, I have had to sue because to allow infringement weakens the strength of the mark."

You dont have to sue you choose to sue. This guy is 24 and a simple letter explainning what is going on and if he doesnt stop then you will be forced to take legal actions. One can be known as a good guy or know as something else.

it's just business it's not personal at least that's what johnny two toes used to tell us.

[adirty1]

Originally Posted by brad

Yea, Ray.. the way I read this as someone created something like Fong's software and touted as "Just like (trademark), only this is free" or "This is a free version of Fong's (trademark)"

Both of which are Very Bad Ideas (tm) <-- Note trademark, please

yes it wasn't the best idea. However how many times have you seen free ware that was just like the real thing. for god sakes OFFICE and OPEN OFFICE and STAR OFFICE

[brad]

You do have to sue.. or at least take official legal action of some sort.. otherwise, a court can rule that the trademark owner allowed it to be "watered down" by "vernacular use" ... if you think this can't happen.. go do some research on "Band-Aid" sometime.

Part of owning a registered trademark is that you *have* to defend it in a way that is recognized by the court.

[brad]

Originally Posted by adirty1

yes it wasn't the best idea. However how many times have you seen free ware that was just like the real thing. for god sakes OFFICE and OPEN OFFICE and STAR OFFICE

Except that "Office" isn't a registered trademark. "Microsoft Office" is. (And you can't register "Office" as it is a single word in common usage.)

The violation was (apparently) because he used the term "Gary Fong's Power Console" to promote his own thing..

[adirty1]

Originally Posted by brad

Except that "Office" isn't a registered trademark. "Microsoft Office" is. (And you can't register "Office" as it is a single word in common usage.)

The violation was (apparently) because he used the term "Gary Fong's Power Console" to promote his own thing..

No the violation was that the warez might be better and was for free...

[awsilver]

Originally Posted by brad

Yea, Ray.. the way I read this as someone created something like Fong's software and touted as "Just like (trademark), only this is free" or "This is a free version of Fong's (trademark)"

Both of which are Very Bad Ideas (tm) <-- Note trademark, please

Careful Brad, the company I work for has already registered IDEAS®...wouldn't want there to be any issues with that :D <-- I'm joking of course, well, except for registering IDEAS®.

[brad]

Whatever.. I'm done with the topic.

And stay away from my registered trademark.

(Yes, I've been down this path, that's why I can be somewhat sympathetic... I don't know that there wasn't a cease and desist first and I don't care... I just think its unfair to gang up on the person who had his trademark violated as if having the trademark and defending it were what was wrong.)

That, is my final word.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by adirty1

No the violation was that the warez might be better and was for free...

So . . . using your logic, everyone would be switching to the "warez version of Office" as you call it. Hmmmm, I think Microsoft still owns most of the Office market, so obviously the warez version is not better, nor will it ever be accepted in the mainstream.

The problem is that in today's society, people want something for nothing.. Warez, mp3's, etc... - the younger generation is used to STEALING what they want to use with no regard for the time and effort it took to develop the original. Most of the time, it is not the actual work that is valuable - it is the original idea that the "inventor" came up with. Many people can "copy" a photograph; and, in some cases, get a better result, but the original is always more valuable as it was the unique idea that the viewer first liked.

Just like in this case . . . it is not the fact that "Houston" could not have come up with these actions in the first place, it is the fact that he blatently copied the design and work of another person and then even used the other persons name/product name in the "marketing" of his product. Yes, it does take litigation to solve issues like this - otherwise, you leave yourself open to others doing the same thing to other products that you have "invented".

[Abel]

discussion on the topic at hand is fine...

lets just keep it civil and respectful to the parties involved...

or else.... No soup for you! and you! and you!

sorry... a little Seinfeld flashback...