He didn't join the group till 02. So unless it was an asinine statement along the lines he was still in diapers he said he didn't peruse the archives back to 95 so he was oblivious to anything I said about Rosetta. Those are almost his exact words paraphrazed. I proved he saw my post as an active poster and used it on his web site later which he denied because he contends he 'pulled it out of the air'. I think he will dispute your statement "He never said he didn't see what you wrote in 2003" because that means he didn't 'pull it out of the air' unless he changes his story again about what he knew and when he knew it. You didn't see the copyright lawyer follow up my post with an au contrair post so I guess he concurs with me that it is purloined intellectual property subject to copyright laws. How about something a little more critical in your thinking than the tried and proven media trick of posing deflecting questions as fact like How many posts does it take for you too realize you're backing the wrong horse?
If a lawyer did make a post backing your claim of infringement, you're going to have to provide a name. The only person I've seen participate in this discussion and claim to be a lawyer is Sonam Dasara. And what Sonam wrote hardly concurs with your claims.
Are you willing to share the name of this supposed lawyer? Or are you going to leave yet another claim unverified?
As for backing the wrong horse, Mike's not the one getting plonked.
DogMa said his business was intellectual property rights. He's the one that didn't respond to my post about using Lexus\Nexus to verify if my idea of using tea cans as a Rosetta Stone was ever used in the popular media. If no evidence is found to the contrary the Court pretty much rules a slam dunk for the copyright infringement claimant. AFAIK your legal council on the veracity of my claim of copyright infringement are ambulance chasers. So you admit the accused party read my post about the Rosetta Stone in 2003 and used it on his site later. You just contradicted his version of serendipity. You can't fool Perry Mason. The jury also ruled in my favor that a cheatsheet can't be ruled a Rosetta Stone perse if no evidence of any transliteration attempt. The use of a bilingual dictionary was ruled inadmissable under the grounds that in and of itself it also constituted a copyright infringement when not properly quoted.
No, Jim. Dog Ma said that he made his money from intellectual property. He didn't say he was a lawyer. There is a difference. And after making that statement, he went on to describe how your claims have no merit, and to praise Mike. You might to reconsider your supporting cast, because it's not good when they contradict you.
So here you are, waxing jurisprudential again, and yet the only person who claims to be a lawyer, Sonam Dasara, who has said anything about this issue in this group disagrees with you.
On top of which, you keep trying to claim copyright on things that copyright does not protect. I don't know if you're being purposefully dense, or you just don't get it. One last time:
Titles and phrases are protected by trademark. Ideas and methods are protected by patent. Content and descriptions are protected by copyright.
Unless you can't point to content or description or text (other than a commonly used phrase) that Mike took directly from your posts, then you're claim of copyright infringement is a pipe dream. You can scream "he stole my idea" until you're blue in the face. Unless you patented it, you've got no legal claim on the idea.
Either way, we've wasted enough of everyone else's bandwidth on this mess. I'm pretty sure that nobody else cares, and, in the words of the immortal Archie Bunker, we should both just stifle.
-- Derek
If I'm "crippled by a lack of ethics", can I draw disability?
Wow - ya go out for a cuppa, and look what what happens in the meanwhile!
Just to start on an up note, I spent a truly delightful long weekend up in NYC with some of the experts, aficionados, purveyors and others who appear occasionally on this group and others. A return visit to the inimitable Big Apple Tea House started awkwardly when they were out of everything we really wanted to try. The (absurdly generous for the price) mountain of what seemed like very fresh TGY more than compensated, as we imbibed through quite a few steeps of DIY gong-fu. And I finally made it to Tea Gallery with the gang. Hope I don't get beat up for promoting this place into crowding, but it's truly a must-see. Such nice proprietors, and a bargain for the they-do-it gong-fu with diverse interesting teas. (It's not a tea house, though; live tippling by reservation only.) The only real problem is that all this great teaware is surrounded by serious antiques that make the former seem more affordable, enhancing the already potent buying impulse. BTW, for people who like a delicate repast after tea, it's only a few blocks from Katz's. (World's greatest pastrami in orogenous sandwiches, and where you-know-which scene in "When Harry Met Sally" was filmed.)
OK, back to the flame wars:
Derek thus responded to Jim:
You got that right, Derek. Thanks for reading carefully what I went to the trouble carefully to write. I do not give legal advice. I am an organic chemist with limited legal training. My business is not IP; I just happen to have done a lot in the area during the last 15 years or so, and by happenstance worked mainly in that area for the past couple of years. My core business lies in helping people and groups achieve clarity about their objectives and methods, leading to enhanced effectiveness in strategic planning - nothing that would be relevant here.
Derek again:
Righto. I resent being invoked to attack someone who, though we've never met, I respect enormously. And back to Jim, why on earth would I bother to do a database search to support a contention with which I entirely disagree?
Without giving legal advice for which I'm unqualified, I must say that this agrees with my reading. In fact, the USPTO site makes it about as clear as can be. I went through all this a few years ago when I wanted to protect some clever phrases (a couple of which even made it into broader use, in one case a headline for a drug company's annual report). More recently, I've shelled out big bucks to protect similar phrases as service marks. To do so requires filing documentation of use in trade, and specification of a narrow field of use. Given that Jim himself (IIRC) has described a vendor using the phrase in a similar context, prior-use doctrine might make it hard to claim ownership of the "Rosetta" phrase for tea business now. But what do I know - I'm just a dumb country doctor, Jim.
Ditto. I'm only posting here as my alter ego's name has been taken in vain. Please include me out of future contention in this vein.
I won't argue the substantive points of the DM post since he responded and asked to be excused. Your pro bono council gave you some good legal advice 'since most folks who post "definitive answers" on this subject are clueless...' Now we can both stifle for the time being. I'm a self admitted Meathead but I like curmudgeon better.
thank you to Dog Ma and to Tea for mentioning cool places in new york to imbibe. i moved to long island in august, but hang out in the city as much as graduate studies and graduate stipend permit.
Tea: thanks for mentioning the east village place, and for giving directions. i look forward to checking it out.
Dog Ma: i found the big apple tea house in the phone book, but couldn't find anything called 'tea gallery'. i'd be grateful if you could post directions, address, whatever.
the only place i've made it to so far is a sweet little place called 'podunk', at 231 e 5th st, between 1st & 2nd aves, i think. the woman who owns the place/runs the place/has happened to be working each time i've been is possibly the sweetest person on earth. unfortunately, there's pretty much nothing vegan on the food menu and the teas all seem to be from upton's. it's fun and wonderful, but not in a tea way.
i've tried intermittantly to call in pursuit of tea for about a year now, hoping to visit them in brooklyn. i've been using the number and address on the website, but no one has ever answered the phone, and the storefront is always shuttered. maybe i've just got bad timing. it is indeed a place where one can drink tea, right?
what i'd really love to find is a new york version of the parisian maison des trois thes. straightforward service of teas i can't find elsewhere, no obligatory eating (sorry, i have ideosyncratic culinary ethics, a one-track mind and a severely stressed credit line), great stuff all around. any recommendations would be gratefully received. cheers! chuck
This poses a major ethical dilemma: share the wealth of pleasure with zillions more tea fanatics, while supporting these very nice people, or keep it more of an inside deal? I guess the boddhisattva vow requires me to reveal:
Tea Gallery is at 131 Allen St., a couple of blocks south of Houston on the west side of the street. Ph. 212-777-6148. It's the restaurant supply area, so some other shops nearby have cheap'n'cheerful cookware and ceramics of all sorts - including tetsubins at fair prices. Reminder: TG is not a drop-in tea house; they sell fine tea and teaware, including serious antiques, but only serve tastings by special arrangement. BATH is the opposite: very informal. Priced OK for stipend sippers - one (or several) could spend an afternoon over one or two $10-ish gong-fu setups. Cheap nibbles, too. But I defer to the natives for more accurate info.
DrinksForum 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.