illegal creativity?

[Randall Reetz]

All mosquitos are relevant.  It is scale that matters here.  Scale and reality.  Else all of us would be behind bars and prohibited from buying crest toothpaste.  Fair use and happy customers build brand loyalty faster than fear and loathing.  Not only that, customer inovation and parasitic coevolution is a sign of health and currency.  The lawyers play second fiddle to the guys in marketing and sales.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Brian Yennie" <briany at qldlearning.com>
To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
Sent: 3/20/2009 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: illegal creativity?

Randall,

I give up on this thread, and don't want to detail it any further from  
the original poster's needs. There's nothing paranoid at all about  
taking lawsuits seriously. Obviously everyone can assess their own  
situation and decide whether they fly under the radar or have a killer  
idea worth the risk.

As far as "us mosquitos", some of us have invested our entire careers  
in our businesses, and consider them quite valuable and relevant.  
Believe it or not, we're not all inconsequential to large  
corporations. Some of us are not just tinkering around.

> Wow, new key word "paranoia".  Looks like the evil them and their  
> evil tactics win (at least they have with you).  I think the idea  
> that someone tinkering around in an interpreted language IDE who  
> deludes themselves into thinking that larry ellis would want his  
> legal staff running around hacking the heads off of us mosquitos  
> should be more concerened with the guys in the white vans than with  
> lawyers.  I dont know, are you steve jobs in disguise?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Brian Yennie" <briany at qldlearning.com>
> To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
> Sent: 3/20/2009 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: illegal creativity?
>
> Randall,
>
> Companies tend to see anyone who makes money in any tangential way to
> their own as competition. Good luck breaking EULAs and assuming that
> the authors will just see you as value-added. More likely they sue you
> out of existence first, and then decide if they want to recreate your
> tool for themselves. Or "acquire" you for a bargain price in exchange
> for not suing.
>
> I'm not saying what you describe has never happened, but going in with
> that cavalier attitude is generally going to get you in trouble.
> 'Never let a case like this go to court' you say... I think you vastly
> underestimate the litigious nature of the corporate world.
>
>> Key word "competition".
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Brian Yennie" <briany at qldlearning.com>
>> To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
>> Sent: 3/20/2009 5:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: illegal creativity?
>>
>> Randall,
>>
>> You can't be serious -- go ahead and break the EULA because you might
>> get acquired instead of sued? That seems a bit like saying, go ahead
>> and drive into a tree, your airbag should deploy. Since when are big
>> companies afraid of suing the competition into compliance?
>>
>>> Not exactly true.  A large company would never let a case like this
>>> go to court.  Bad publicity.  Unless the tool you are planning to
>>> release directly competes with or decreases the need for said
>>> product, your tool will only be seen as adding value to the
>>> marketplace.  More and more illegal bs is being written into user
>>> licenses as scare tactic deterent.  Much more likely is that your
>>> product would be aquiered.  Remember who is most likely to sit on a
>>> jury (not board members!).
> ______________________________________________


[truncated by sender]