Post by jeff on Feb 13, 2016 21:25:09 GMT
Something TSI does not enforce, but worth bringing up...
ANY patented/copyrighted name can be used in context, BUT, it has to directly relate to the source. Wil Ellmer and Matias Volco are constantly misusing the name 'Ramform' to describe any roughly triangular shaped floating thing they decide needs a catchy name, as opposed to the way I use it, to describe a specific, patented hull design with specific characteristics to match. That not only creates confusion, but it subjects the sites, they misuse that name on, to potential DMCA take-down notices and lawsuits, as well as opening themselves up to litigation.
I've quit arguing with them, but report their posts, with respect to 'Ramform', and remind TSI that it could be subject to litigation and take-down notices. If TSI fails to do anything, then that is on them. If I really wanted to, I could contact Roar Ramde and let him know, and push the issue. It would not be pretty.
At the moment, ONLY PGS (Petroleum Geo-Services) and the Norwegian Navy have hulls using the Ramform design, so the bogus claim as to it being a 'generic' term is also subject to the DMCA and litigation, not only by Roar Ramde, but by PGS and the Norwegian government. My guess is that there is a mutually exclusive contract between Roar Ramde and PGS, limiting the commercial production of Ramform hulls and derivatives to PGS, for some number of years, similar to the way an exclusive franchise, say Mc Donald's, operates and requires so many specific things, in order to be called a Mc Donald's restaurant (also not a generic term, despite the many thousands in existence).
Some differences in the way I use the term Ramform include non-commercial use, non-commercial production, no means of propulsion, stationary positioning, and not using it as any sort of transport. Once I have the funds to have my concept properly engineered, I fully expect to be in direct collaboration with Roar Ramde, and have his official stamp of approval.
ANY patented/copyrighted name can be used in context, BUT, it has to directly relate to the source. Wil Ellmer and Matias Volco are constantly misusing the name 'Ramform' to describe any roughly triangular shaped floating thing they decide needs a catchy name, as opposed to the way I use it, to describe a specific, patented hull design with specific characteristics to match. That not only creates confusion, but it subjects the sites, they misuse that name on, to potential DMCA take-down notices and lawsuits, as well as opening themselves up to litigation.
I've quit arguing with them, but report their posts, with respect to 'Ramform', and remind TSI that it could be subject to litigation and take-down notices. If TSI fails to do anything, then that is on them. If I really wanted to, I could contact Roar Ramde and let him know, and push the issue. It would not be pretty.
At the moment, ONLY PGS (Petroleum Geo-Services) and the Norwegian Navy have hulls using the Ramform design, so the bogus claim as to it being a 'generic' term is also subject to the DMCA and litigation, not only by Roar Ramde, but by PGS and the Norwegian government. My guess is that there is a mutually exclusive contract between Roar Ramde and PGS, limiting the commercial production of Ramform hulls and derivatives to PGS, for some number of years, similar to the way an exclusive franchise, say Mc Donald's, operates and requires so many specific things, in order to be called a Mc Donald's restaurant (also not a generic term, despite the many thousands in existence).
Some differences in the way I use the term Ramform include non-commercial use, non-commercial production, no means of propulsion, stationary positioning, and not using it as any sort of transport. Once I have the funds to have my concept properly engineered, I fully expect to be in direct collaboration with Roar Ramde, and have his official stamp of approval.