PDA

View Full Version : Some more reading



swanbourne
14th June 2006, 18:08
Determined not to let them get away with attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes, I just had to say this.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno= ... OPP&eno=36 (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158655&pty=OPP&eno=36)

Eddie

MikeB
14th June 2006, 18:19
Excellent research, well put!

rfrazier
14th June 2006, 18:37
No punches pulled there. :)

Best wishes,
Bob

Michael in Frisco, Texas
14th June 2006, 19:01
Eddie, that is succinct, well researched and well stated. As I understand your response, it accurately portrays Omega's motion to strike as a nothing but whining by Omega. You are absolutely correct. Their motion should be in all things denied.

Interestingly, it seems that the Patent examiners have begun to pick up on Omega's whining as well. That is just my two cents worth, though.

Best of luck, Eddie.

Michael in Frisco, Texas
14th June 2006, 19:07
Eddie, another thought has occurred to me. If I recall correctly from my prior employment in the legal profession, motions such as those filed by Omega can cause spontaneous sanctions by the court. There is no basis in fact or colorable argument under the current law -- to achieve perhaps an extension of existing law -- supporting Omega's motion to strike.

Quite frankly, if I were the presiding jurist, I would -- on my own motion -- sanction Omega and its counsel for filing such specious drivel.

...but that's just me, though... :wink:

rfrazier
14th June 2006, 19:10
And Texas sanctions aren't like NY sanctions either. Chuck Norris is a participant in Texas sanctions. ;)

Best wishes,
Bob

bootneck
14th June 2006, 19:10
Go get em Eddie good research and very eloquently put i'm still on my Omega boycott advising friends and family to look at other brands

swanbourne
14th June 2006, 19:13
I have no legal training at all but I simply couldn't believe that all Internet based evidence should be automatically struck. Just searched the US Patent & Trademark Office website for "Internet AND admissible" and it turned up what I was looking for. :)

Eddie

Dave E
14th June 2006, 19:19
Go for it, Eddie!

JohnF
14th June 2006, 19:48
Hi -

Without getting nasty about it (oh so tempting, but I've sent all my good karms to Ernie at WatchUSeek to keep his system up and running...), I would tend to wonder at the actual competence of a lawyer who doesn't bother to actually research what he is claiming.

I know that if I did that at my job, I'd be handed my head on a platter and politely recommended that I use it as a suppository.


I mean, this really isn't rocket science any more. Back when I was installing networks and training people on PCs in DC (1986/7) searching Lexis and Nexis was the real big thing. While granted you can't always trust everything on the internet, any even moderately competent legal aid should have been able to do a due diligence search.

Totally bizarre...

JohnF

Michael in Frisco, Texas
14th June 2006, 20:01
I would tend to wonder at the actual competence of a lawyer who doesn't bother to actually research what he is claiming.

JohnF

John, while I don't suppose to speak for Omega's counsel, I imagine that they are of the mind that Eddie, as a non-lawyer, isn't up to the task of figuring out how the rules of the "game" are played. Therefore, he took an easy shot at trying to be a bully.

I actually think that their counsel has probably told them (Omega) that it is likely that Eddie could prevail. Furthermore, I believe that Omega is driving this bus so it can continue to be the bully.

A.Pottinger
14th June 2006, 20:45
I sense that Omega have a budget or warchest for, in policy and therefore in action, agressively defining, defending and furthering their brand and its assets.

As such, they may defend what is in fact not theirs, for the purpose of the implications for the other assets, as defined by them. Brandnames and other intellectual property that are of goodwill in value (difficult to quantify in value and in themselves) are more prone to such a view.

This includes intellectual assets such as brandnames, symbols and so forth, which have difficult to define value, but are noverthless sensitive aspects of the overall brand image. The represent a focus now, but also of brand p/style derivative possibiltes in future markets both in time and of the material kind that both realate back to the brand image.

THis image is defined not only against what they currently posess, but by those close to what they posess-for something is defined per se but slaos in the eyes of particularly the consimer, on economic logic, the next possible or closest choice.

In actively seeking out those who fit this, they would make an assessment of the possibilities:

cost vs. thier budget
the possibilities of success in relation to:
their adversary's asset, their access or practical possibility to legal arms and upon this, the possibility of a mistake, error and that which they may gain.

A cost-benefit analysis, whilst they have a large budget, a policy of agressive ;defence' and they make it clear to others, if not many consimers, in redefinition what their brand is and that it is exclusive, powerful and defensible-they will do so: i.e. signalling a good investment to both the company/ies and the consumers.

This may be indicative of a wish by Omega to go to a higher bracket, or that they are feeling the competition in their current bracket, for this product type.

The negative pub. will not do good, however, it will be offset to some degree by the alert it gives to the industry, and consumer as to their gravitas etc.

I these three key areas:

brand definition,
industry perception/implication
and consumer expectation/perception

As mike succinctly put it, they are 'driving the bus'. And they are aware of the potentialities of the game, as well as the lay of the route. However, there are always unforseen hazards, such as...TZ and others:)

Personally, to my mind it is reprehensible, and I no longer have an Omega, and shan't be purchasing one. It is unconsionable to do what they are doing, I feel.

Sincerely,

Pottinger :)

Steve264
14th June 2006, 22:46
Much respect to you, Eddie. :salute:
I shall certainly invest in a Broadarrow or Precista many times over before I ever buy from the big O after following this saga.

endure
14th June 2006, 22:52
I'm beginning to get a bit worried by all this O bashing. I have an Omega Dynamic which I'm hoping to sell in the not too distant future :(

Gert
14th June 2006, 23:18
Very clear, and very well done, Eddie!

@ Richard. No worries. Swatch have made all the money they'll make on that watch long time ago, so surely a fellow aficionado will want it :)

Cheers,
Gert

A.Pottinger
15th June 2006, 01:28
Just re-read it in more detail-tight argument, succinct and as rfrazier wrote-no punches pulled!

'fatally flawed' sums up their argument viz. admissability of internet evidence tremedously imo.

They should be demanded, imo, to 'fall on their sword'.

My best wishes for a good and rightful decision in your favour, at the least, from the court.

Sincerely,

Pottinger :)

Qatar-wol
15th June 2006, 07:55
Nice work, Eddie. I can't begin to imagine what a pain in the arse this has been, so well done for keeping it up!

sschum
16th June 2006, 00:31
Hi Eddie. Nice work on your replies. While I am not a patent and trademark lawyer (I'm a tax lawyer), I think you have the better case. What I find most laughable about their motion to strike is that their main case is the Glamorene Products case, which is from 1979. What this case could possibly have to say about internet based documents and evidence is beyond me! You rely on cases that seem to be much more relevant to the issue at hand. Best of luck with your case. I am wearing my Speedbird 1 as I type this, I only wish it had broadarrow hands on it!

chrisb
16th June 2006, 09:22
I sense that Omega have a budget or warchest for, in policy and therefore in action, agressively defining, defending and furthering their brand and its assets.
.................................................. .................................................. ..................Personally, to my mind it is reprehensible, and I no longer have an Omega, and shan't be purchasing one. It is unconsionable to do what they are doing, I feel.

Sincerely,

Pottinger :)

Ailfrid, that's the first time that I've understood one of your posts :wink:

good stuff :)

johnbaz
20th June 2006, 22:26
I'm beginning to get a bit worried by all this O bashing. I have an Omega Dynamic which I'm hoping to sell in the not too distant future :(

richard, concerning your dynamic, i don't think you will have trouble selling it as, being second hand, no monies will go to omega, unless there is a sort of goodwill embargo on all things omega-then, i'm afraid you're stuck with it :roll:

eddie, give 'em f'kin hell :twisted:

they don't like it up 'em Mr Maiwaring sir :lol: :lol:

best regards, john.

abraxas
20th June 2006, 22:49
they don't like it up 'em Mr Maiwaring sir :lol: :lol:

.............

http://www.homeworking.ws/bikes,%20motorcycles,%20tanks,%20fighter%20planes, %20sports%20cars/pike.jpg

I wonder if Nomega has copyrighted 'The Pike'? :(

john

A.Pottinger
20th June 2006, 22:52
:lol: :lol: :lol:

That split my sides, Abraxas!

Alpha to the Omega is all I have to say :shock: :lol: :wink:

Sincerely,

Pottinger :)

johnbaz
20th June 2006, 23:05
they don't like it up 'em Mr Maiwaring sir :lol: :lol:

.............

http://www.homeworking.ws/bikes,%20motorcycles,%20tanks,%20fighter%20planes, %20sports%20cars/pike.jpg

I wonder if Nomega has copyrighted 'The Pike'? :(

john

ha ha ha ha- good 'un john :lol:

regards, john.

tempus
3rd October 2006, 22:58
More power to ya Eddie 8)

swanbourne
4th October 2006, 07:59
We don't need no stinking badges. :wink:

Eddie