On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:50:35 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
Normally the patent-holders just don't bother to sue people infringing for
personal use--it wouldn't be worth their while.

Chris

Disney will jump on anyone that uses one of their characters. ANYONE, even
granny that embroiders a Donald Duck on baby's bib. They are one of the
toughest in defending their copyrights.

Yet they have no worries about fragrantly violating copyright
protected material from non US jurisdictions for their own gains.

Disney are two faced utter scum.


--

In article t,
LDR wrote:

A different take on this thread:
SNIP
Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.


I didn't see the letter sent to FWW

WHAT?! You didn't take the time to read the letter that Robin made
available to the group and yet you jump into the fray with both feet?

Here's the link from Robin:
"Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he
http://www.leevalley.com/home/temprl/Fine%20Woodworking-1.doc"
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

WHAT?! You didn't take the time to read the letter that Robin made
available to the group and yet you jump into the fray with both feet?

Here's the link from Robin:
"Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he
http://www.leevalley.com/home/temprl/Fine%20Woodworking-1.doc"

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

In article t,
LDR wrote:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the
special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word
to my newsreader).




July 6, 2004



Mr. Jim Richey
Editor
Fine Woodworking
Taunton Press
63 South Main Street, Box 5506
Newton, CT 06470 U.S.A.


Methods of Work: Magnetic dovetail guides;
August 2004, Issue No. 171 of Fine Woodworking


Dear Mr. Richey

This letter is further to the publication of the referenced article.

As one of the pre-eminent publications in the industry, readers rely on your
expertise regarding tools, technique, history, innovation, etc. We realize
that it would be quite unreasonable to expect your publishing company to
perform patent infringement searches prior to featuring every machine, method
or home-made jig in your magazine. However, your respected knowledge of the
industry and its various publications, more particularly your familiarity
with your own publications in this case of our Dovetail Jig - as recently as
Winter 2001/2002 Issue No.153 - should have at least raised a flag when Mr.
Keith Rust's submission was received. For your review and reference we
enclose a copy of our United States Patent No. 6,607,016, issued on August
19, 2003, for a Jig for Hand Cutting Dovetail Joints.

We believe that under Title 35 U.S.C. 271, Keith Rust's submission is a
direct infringement of our patented tool and that by publishing the article,
Fine Woodworking is inducing its readers to infringe.

Lee Valley Tools Ltd. takes pride in the quality and number of innovative
products it has developed. It respects others' intellectual property rights
and vigorously defends its own.

We look forward to receiving your comments along with your suggestions for
remedy as soon as conveniently possible.

Yours very truly




Ági Vezer (Ms.)
IP Specialist

Encl.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

In article t,
LDR wrote:

A different take on this thread: What I found interesting is that
despite Lee Valley and FWW representing, I think, the ethical high end
of woodworking retail and journalism, Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

You obviously have never seen what legal jumping on with both feet is if
you think this was overkill from a laywer.

In article ,
says...
In article t,
LDR wrote:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the
special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word
to my newsreader).

I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

"LDR" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
In article t,
LDR wrote:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In
situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the
special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word
to my newsreader).

I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

I am sure that some of us would appreciate a little groveling.

"LDR" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
In article t,
LDR wrote:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In
situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the
special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word
to my newsreader).

I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

No worries - here....

I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more than a
year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly
inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

Cheers -

Rob

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:35:38 -0500, "Robin Lee" wrote:


"LDR" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
says...
In article t,
LDR wrote:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no
longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In
situations
like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I
never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the
special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word
to my newsreader).

I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

No worries - here....

I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more than a
year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly
inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

Cheers -

Rob


Rob,

Did the offending tip occur in their last Tools and Shops edition?
Maybe they were trying to print the retraction in the same special edition
as the original article?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:35:38 -0500, "Robin Lee"
wrote:

snip


No worries - here....

I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more
than a
year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly
inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

Cheers -

Rob


Rob,

Did the offending tip occur in their last Tools and Shops edition?
Maybe they were trying to print the retraction in the same special edition
as the original article?



Hi Mark -

Nope - the issue was a regular one... #171.

Of course - any retraction loses it's relevance if it's left long enough...
and this one was a dead issue, as far as FWW readers would be concerned...

As I said - I don't understand what they're trying to do, or why. I suppose
when they're done their turkey, I'll find out.

Cheers -

Rob

Robin Lee wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:35:38 -0500, "Robin Lee"
wrote:

snip


No worries - here....

I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more
than a
year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly
inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

Cheers -

Rob


Rob,

Did the offending tip occur in their last Tools and Shops edition?
Maybe they were trying to print the retraction in the same special edition
as the original article?


Hi Mark -

Nope - the issue was a regular one... #171.

Of course - any retraction loses it's relevance if it's left long enough...
and this one was a dead issue, as far as FWW readers would be concerned...

As I said - I don't understand what they're trying to do, or why. I suppose
when they're done their turkey, I'll find out.


I'm guessing it finally trickled into the cognizance of some corporate
lawyer wanna' be type after wending its way for lo! these many months
and finally resurfaced replete w/ cya...

LDR wrote:

: I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
: But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
: with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
: went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
: editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
: apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))



Here's what's weird: the letter from Lee Valley was written in
early July, 2004. Why is FWW publishing its comment now?

-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:

LDR wrote:

: I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there.
: But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping
: with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I
: went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the
: editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to
: apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

Here's what's weird: the letter from Lee Valley was written in
early July, 2004. Why is FWW publishing its comment now?


3-6 months in the queue waiting for somebody to decide what to do about
it, another 6 months for it to be reviewed by some legal beagle and the
response written, then 3 months minimum to meet next production
schedule...

Robin Lee wrote:

....
I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more than a
year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly
inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

I had seen this before but it didn't even register as a recollection of
what was actually printed. I happened by chance to pick up the issue
last night to thumb thru again (while watching Peyton and his buddies
demolish the latest fodder ) and thought to look at the FWW response.

Must say it seemed like very standard and benign lawyer-speak for a CYA
statement. It seemed intended to be a very generic response to a
specific instance outlining a defense against future possible litigation
should that possibility arise that they are now documented as being
against appropriation of anybody's patent rights. That it took a year to
get into print for a slick-paper magazine doesn't surprise me a bit. As
it has essentially no specific response to the particular incident other
than as the preface for why the disclaimer at all, I can also see why it
was never brought to LV's attention before publication. In a
non-litigious society it would probably have been handled as a simple
personal letter but I suspect FWW Corporate treated it properly in
today's climate (even though all here and at FWW know enough of LV to
"know" it wouldn't be an issue in this particular case, there's no room
any more for such an approach in general, unfortunately.)