OT: Trademark misuse - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT: Trademark misuse

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please note that there is noone in Atmel (including me) that has requested
Roman to
stop any activities to resell Atmel product.
This is purely between Roman and the distributor.

Again, read signature....

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Let's assume distributors employee steps on the product but does not
want to admit it and ships it out hoping the post office takes the blame.

I own my business and work hard on it, it would be very stupid from me
send damaged components out and damage my name even more than few chips
are worth.

    Roman

Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

???  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,...

Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course! That is the point and every retailer does that. Tesco buys
500pcs of bread loaves and resels them 1 by 1. Distributors themselves
buy big quantities of parts and then resell smaller quantities.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

    Roman

Re: OT: Trademark misuse

Quoted text here. Click to load it

(Hi Antti :-) )

If it is a local call, try ringing them. Getting the right person may be
a problem, but as you suggest, a letter may be easily binned. A phone
call, they have to address.

Work on the additional Digikey sales potential offered by your site.

Mind you, it's their policy, so you will have to wear their answer.

Again reminds me of Microchip and the term "PIC".
Loyal followers like Dave Benson (Square One Books), had to rewrite all
of his books, so that he didn't use the term PIC.

They destroyed a lot of their support by doing that.

Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is but..... there are few OT net police here fortunately.  You should
try this on comp.lang.c :-)

The first and MOST IMPORTANT point is that you do not say where you are.
This is an international NG.  I have no idea if you are here or
somewhere foreign like the US.

The advice you need can only come form a LOCAL lawyer.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


IANAL I would suggest you find out EXACTLY what their objection is. It
may be simply  the legal department on autopilot. When you discuss it
with them (or some one higher up the chain ) that all will be sorted.

I can se that they may not like you using the stock and pricing from
their web site or the use of their logo. In which case don't refer to
their stock levels and do your own pricing.

In any event talk to them and then a local lawyer.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The net police on comp.lang.c are somewhat over-zealous.  Mention
a traditional C function that didn't make it into the standard for
portability reasons (e.g. fork() ) and you'll instantly get cries
of "But that isn't ANSI C!!!".

Just don't mention that comp.lang.c (and hence its charter) predate
the ANSI specification. ;-)

--
Andrew Smallshaw
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lonestar.org

Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Anything that fits any of the C standards (K&R I, K&R II, C89, C90,
C95, C99) is happily accepted.  Things that are specific to Windows
or Unix, etc. are told to go to an appropriate newsgroup.

Fork is not traditional.  It is never mentioned in any of the above
C standards, except possibly K&R as a Unix specific function.  It
can't even be implemented in standard C.  The purpose of the policy
is to generate generally portable code.

--
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

But not MISRA-C  (which is far more widely used than C99, K&R1 or K&R2)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

so what?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No it's not it is the policy of SOME not all . Many others do not mind
the wider remit. It is only a few zealots who try to restrict it ot an
artificial frame.





--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I second that. Was a watching c.l.c for some 2-3 years, but reminders
about topicality created so much noise that I gave up.

Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

--
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

--
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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,

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You surprise me. Unless this was intended as humour?

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com



Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Trademark misuse

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: OT: Trademark misuse
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline