Re: (OT) Is Sikorsky Doing This?

Frank, I think the answer to your question #3 is found in Mark's Mode #4. If this is a blunderbuss approach then all of us little guys are merely collateral damage.

I'm with Mark on the E-bay point. They just fold when anyone pressures them.

Bill Banaszak

My question still is, why is Sikorsky jerking an individual?? Like has been mentioned elsewhere, this is the same as an individual selling a used Ford car, Johnson boat, Cessna airplane, B & D saw, Stanley hammer, GIJoe, Hot Wheels, etc. What is theirs & eBay's point??

I think I'll drop them a line, and CC my elected representatives and the local papers. If it gets a dditional attention, excllent. If not, I'm willing to drop a dollar or two on extra postage.

I would love to see this on 60 Minutes. :)

You know, there may be something to the "bogus helo parts". In aviation, for about the last 15 years, bogus parts have been a hot issue. You woudn't believe just how extreme the FAA will go to prove a a part is bogus, just due to a sticker or something. And fine mechanics & shops, etc., tens of thousands of dollars & even jail time. Problem with bogus parts is that they sometimes end up in the original manufacturer's lap in the lawsuits. Maybe these pricks at Sikorsky aren't even looking at the item itself. I remember a couple of things. I read many years ago that one of Aurora's main sources of info for a/c was the magazine "Aviation Week & Space Technology". If you were in the aviation field, you got a cheaper subscription. Aurora claimed to be something like "manufacturer of small aircraft parts". There you have it, "parts". On a serious side, about a dozen years ago, some outfit picked up a batch of surplus gears for Bell OH-58 transmissions. They also fit civil Bell

Could we stuff this in a metatag, or something else that just doesn't display? They'd have a hard time making a case against someone for _not_ displaying their trademaked name..

Rob

Interesting. Can you let me have an outline on the souls proposal thing in time for Wednesday's meeting? Chek

Been done several times but their conclusion was not the same as yours.

Tom

Tarhe was a person in this case. He was a Wyandot chief sometimes known as "The Crane".

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@erols.com)

If the problem seems to be using the manufacturer's name and we are to be forbidden to say S*K*R*K* any longer, then we as modellers will need to employ a form of 'pet name' to circumvent this. The service designations are public property and will not be a problem. How about 'Pile of Junk'? Personally I think a model displays showing tables full of 'Pile of Junk S61', 'Pile of Junk S-55' etc. should keep everyone happy and - I'm sure the lawyers will agree - legitimate. As an aside, I noticed a flyer from Academy recently that did not mention the original manufacturer's names at all, using just the service designations. Chek

You mean the version illegally named after the 1940 - 50s comic book character? I saw it as well.

-- John ___ __[xxx]__ (o - ) --------o00o--(_)--o00o-------

The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry Kissinger

And while we're talking about this - how do Erickson feel about it - AFAIK they now own the copyright and drawings etc for the S******e; hang on tight folks, this could get wild!

RobG (the Aussie > >

I see. Like "Black Hawk", the Indian whatever, as opposed to "Blackhawk", the tribe. One's the S-67 gunship propoal & the other is, of course, the UH-60.

Or lately, Falling Debris. :(

Bill Banaszak, MFE

I don't know about the statute of limitations but I should think a kit that I bought 25 years ago that was on the market for about 10 years before that should qualify. Then I know of S55 kits going back to

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Probably the smart thing to do but it's going to cause trouble eventually. We have done this "Same Name-Different Object" several times and I recall once answering a question here about 1/24 Mustangs thinking Ford when it was North American.

How about "Unohoo" for this formerly great supplier of military equipment?

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Well, now, I'll tell you! In the old days this would be true, but things legally are changing these days, getting quite murky. Some companies are not selling stuff to ol Uncle Sam, they are just "leasing' it. That means they retain all other legal rights to their creation. There is also some kind of change going on in D.o.D. purchasing where the companies retain certain "Intellectual Property" rights while they are selling Uncle the hardware. Only place where the Government gets the whole kaboodle is where Uncle totally funds the R. & D., tooling and production material.

Bill Shuey

I can see it all now. Afew months pass, and Sikorsky announces the release of a line of "Special Edition - Previously Unavailable" kits, of course at a special, higher-than-normal price range.