OT: Trademark misuse

I have been one c.l.c for as long as I can remember which is most of the

17 years I have been on the net and it has got worse over the last few years.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris Hills
Loading thread data ...

Hello all,

thank you for the responses. I sent a letter to VP marketing requesting permission to display content portions on my website, but no response yet.

For now I acknowledged the trademark, appended no affiliation disclaimer and removed all content that cut from digikey website.

I think the site is now in compliance with current Digi-Key terms and conditions, especially section 2 about not copying the content to other computer but alowance to use it for internal business purpose.

I will appreciate any feedback. URL is in my signature.

Roman

-- Roman Ziak

formatting link

Reply to
Roman

... snip ...

FYI K&R2 is effectively the last draft of C89. MISRA is not an ISO standard.

So, for example, discuss it here on c.a.e. The c.l.c. policy is long-standing, and will probably not be changed. comp.programming is also very tolerant, but has a much smaller traffic level. comp.unix.programmer is also available.

As long as useful alternatives exist, it is silly to simply try to reduce all to the same level. Then the groups become pointless competitors, in place of areas that concentrate.

--
 
 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

... snip ...

Fine. Then you are not cluttering c.l.c with off-topic material. Instead you inhabit new-groups of interest to you.

--
 
 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

... snip ...

I suspect anything addressed to "Roman

formatting link
" or to "Ziak
formatting link
" will go astray. The www specifies a receiving protocol for http. See my sig for a possible means.

--
 
 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

??? What does this have to do with no resale? If goods are damaged, it could have happened at any step along the way -- manufacturer, distributor, reseller,...

Reply to
Everett M. Greene

MISRA-C "which is effectively" a standard is more widely used than C99 :-)

and you "permit" K&R 1, K&R2 and ANSI C and C89 "which is effectively" a draft.

You make it up as you go along. MISRA-C is more relevant than either K&R at this time,

NO it isn't. It is only "long standing" with a small group of net nannies on clc. Many disagreed last time it was brought up on CLC and the majority continue to ignore you on this which is why there are so many net nanny posts say "you cant post that here".

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris Hills

You surprise me. Unless this was intended as humour?

Steve

formatting link

Reply to
Steve at fivetrees

Roman clearly did say "URL". I see no implication there for using the URL as part of a mail address.

Steve

formatting link

Reply to
Steve at fivetrees

just beat me to it Steve. :-)

Don...

--
Don McKenzie

Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Don McKenzie

I was mostly just passive reader and much of the noise in c.l.c. was created by yourself.

Reply to
Roman

OK, you guys have a point. I guess that email addresses is just the way my mind works.

--
 If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, ensure 
 you quote enough for the article to make sense. Google is only
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

CBF, by getting the feedback I meant in c.a.e. I provided the URL to invite whoever interested to check my corrections to discussed infringement.

My email address is available in my posts. As wild as it seems, it is live email, which will be valid until I start receiving unreasonable amount of spam on it.

You are right, those assumed email addresses don't exist.

Roman

Reply to
Roman

In article , Steve at fivetrees writes

Not at all. I would suggest that MISRA-C is in far more wide spread than either the K&R 1 or 2 "standards" Virtually all C compilers in use are at least C95 these days.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris Hills

... snip ...

... snip ...

No sweat. It was basically a warning.

--
 
 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Permit me to lobby against undue hyperbole: in my shop, K&R 1 & 2 are the compilers in use (C89/C90) on most all projects and I suspect a careful survey of non-desktop-os environments will turn up a lot more users like myself.

Regards,

Michael

Reply to
msg

Given that I have some idea who is using MISRA-C I think you will find you are in the minority.

Also as I supply a wide range of compilers I have some idea what a lot of people are using. There is the odd one ore two who will be using very old compilers but any compiler less than a decade old will be C95 and many less than 15 years old will not be pure C90

MISRA -C is based on C90 with A1 and the two TC's These were produced, from memory in 1992/3.

So any pure C90 or K&R2 compiler in use are going to be very uncommon. As for K&R1.....

In any event it does not negate the fact that MISRA-C is as important to the C community as any of the ISO standards.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris Hills

That is a question better addressed to Atmels legal dept. (See my signature)

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ulf Samuelsson

True, but the distributor you are buying from, needs to understand what is to be gained by you exposing their name. The risk is that people call them to have them sort out your problem. If you are an unknown entity to them, it is no surprise that the guit reaction is NO.

If they make more profit selling 1 piece to 500 customers then 500 pieces to 1 person, then you *are* hurting them.

You do not have to use their name, you can print a catalogue where you have your own order number and then you can in your ordering system convert from your order number to other order numbers. This is of course a much more costly affair than the procedure you are using now, but this is as you probably understand totally dependent on that other company spending a lot of money.

It is also a matter of brand recognition. Some companies want 100% control over how their name is used.

Personally, I think that it is good for a microcontroller company to have companies which reduces the cost for hobbyist/low volume users and would encourage such activities, but usually an agreement/discussion before that happens is a good idea.

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ulf Samuelsson

then perhaps Atmel shouldn't have resellers, and avoid this potential hazard that you have suggested, and brought to our attention. Sell direct to the public. :-)

Don...

--
Don McKenzie

Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Don McKenzie

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.