Question <nospam@nospamehere.co> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:06:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger
><h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
>>harm to their property?
>
>Grow up ....what harm......... get a life.....

Suppose you learn that every day for years, a person has been letting
himself into your house, taking an afternoon nap on your couch, and
then leaving before you get home, without taking anything, eating any
of the food in your kitchen, or using any of your belongings (except
the couch). No harm done, right?

> Oh by the way these are

"By the way"? You're responding to my response to someone who just
said the same thing you're saying here. "By the way" implies you're
introducing a new point. You're just being repetitive.

>the people that have bought the products, it is very wise to alienate
>a portion of ones customer base especially enthusiastic
>ones......wonderful attitude.

>>
>>The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.
>
>And people cannot petition them to change their mind?

They can *ask*. The whining, the indignation, the chest pounding are
unjustified, unbecoming, and ill advised. Experience tells us that
when you ask for permission to do something, doing it first without
permission, and then putting on an air of entitlement and acting
resentful are not the most effective ways to elicit that permission.

>>It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
>>let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
>>ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
>>trademarks.
>
>On the contrary, failure to consider the ramifications of the exact
>way of protecting the trademark is not a wise move, you are correct
>about the necessity to protect the trademark but a lot of thought
>should be undertaken into the METHODS used to protect ones rights.

What methods? You either allow a person to use your trademarks or you
don't. If someone does it without your permission, you tell them to
stop, and if they don't, you take them to court. There aren't any
other methods for accomplishing this. Well, you could send someone
with automatic weapons to bust up the joint, but you would presumably
care less for that method, not more.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

Question <nospam@nospamehere.co> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:06:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger
><h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
>>harm to their property?
>
>Grow up ....what harm......... get a life.....

Suppose you learn that every day for years, a person has been letting
himself into your house, taking an afternoon nap on your couch, and
then leaving before you get home, without taking anything, eating any
of the food in your kitchen, or using any of your belongings (except
the couch). No harm done, right?

> Oh by the way these are

"By the way"? You're responding to my response to someone who just
said the same thing you're saying here. "By the way" implies you're
introducing a new point. You're just being repetitive.

>the people that have bought the products, it is very wise to alienate
>a portion of ones customer base especially enthusiastic
>ones......wonderful attitude.

>>
>>The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.
>
>And people cannot petition them to change their mind?

They can *ask*. The whining, the indignation, the chest pounding are
unjustified, unbecoming, and ill advised. Experience tells us that
when you ask for permission to do something, doing it first without
permission, and then putting on an air of entitlement and acting
resentful are not the most effective ways to elicit that permission.

>>It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
>>let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
>>ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
>>trademarks.
>
>On the contrary, failure to consider the ramifications of the exact
>way of protecting the trademark is not a wise move, you are correct
>about the necessity to protect the trademark but a lot of thought
>should be undertaken into the METHODS used to protect ones rights.

What methods? You either allow a person to use your trademarks or you
don't. If someone does it without your permission, you tell them to
stop, and if they don't, you take them to court. There aren't any
other methods for accomplishing this. Well, you could send someone
with automatic weapons to bust up the joint, but you would presumably
care less for that method, not more.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.