Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lonewolfdevel" data-source="post: 5077947" data-attributes="member: 87800">Morrus, it sounds like you managed to conflate the two separate issues as well here. There was a demand to edit/remove posts referring to &quot;Jim's Army Builder&quot; and the like. There was also a demand to inform us how Privateer wanted to handle the education of its community about the trademark issue. That's it.&nbsp;There was no direct legal threat in the message. The next step was that we'd have to get the attorneys involved. That's standard and I'm sure Privateer is quite familiar with the process. Apparently, many in the user community don't understand this and have lept to an interpretation that is pretty extreme. Had we wanted there to be a legal threat, we would have had the attorneys draft a formal C&amp;D letter. We didn't want to do that with Privateer. However, we did do it with a couple of sites that were using our trademark within the names of their tools (e.g. &quot;Jim's Army Builder&quot;).We never did that. We sought education - not regulation. In addition, there was no requirement that Privateer do anything regarding the education. We gave them that option to afford them complete control - if they so chose - but were prepared to handle it entirely ourselves. Please re-read the message again. If you have a specific citation you want to discuss, I'll be happy to do it.&nbsp;You're absolutely correct with this. And it is quite possible that your reaction to the message we sent Privateer is partially colored by sensitivity to being accused of things improperly. Please re-read the message we sent with this in mind and I'll be happy to answer questions you still have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lonewolfdevel, post: 5077947, member: 87800"] Morrus, it sounds like you managed to conflate the two separate issues as well here. There was a demand to edit/remove posts referring to "Jim's Army Builder" and the like. There was also a demand to inform us how Privateer wanted to handle the education of its community about the trademark issue. That's it. There was no direct legal threat in the message. The [I][B]next step[/B][/I] was that we'd have to get the attorneys involved. That's standard and I'm sure Privateer is quite familiar with the process. Apparently, many in the user community don't understand this and have lept to an interpretation that is pretty extreme. Had we wanted there to be a legal threat, we would have had the attorneys draft a formal C&D letter. We didn't want to do that with Privateer. However, we [I][B]did[/B][/I] do it with a couple of sites that were using our trademark within the names of their tools (e.g. "Jim's Army Builder"). We never did that. We sought education - not regulation. In addition, there was no requirement that Privateer do anything regarding the education. We gave them that option to afford them complete control - if they so chose - but were prepared to handle it entirely ourselves. Please re-read the message again. If you have a specific citation you want to discuss, I'll be happy to do it. You're absolutely correct with this. And it is quite possible that your reaction to the message we sent Privateer is partially colored by sensitivity to being accused of things improperly. Please re-read the message we sent with this in mind and I'll be happy to answer questions you still have. [/QUOTE]

Verification