Joe McMillen UP calendar denied

Why now. he's selling a work of art, not the subject of that work of art.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that UP can't stop anyone selling a work of art that features a UP logo.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

"Jim"

Exactly. Or the other numerous works of art that show other trade marks more well know that UP's, Coca-Cola for example.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

UP may be pulling a Microsoft on us. Check any law review you wish (there have been at least 12 written), all have stated publically that it was extremely doubtful that the EULA (End User License Agreement) was either legal or enforcible.

Microsoft relies on it's massive monitary muscle to intemidate those who would wish to challange the EULA. It would take tens of millions of dollars and at least 10 years to win. No person, No company, and No corporation would be willing to risk the expense and time to fight it. Think our government cares either...

The UP might be relying on a similar tactic. It sure works.

About lawyers. I think that it is the accountants that are fueling the UP thing. Companies exist to make money, not win lawsuits.

I think you are wrong here. The UP owns that logo, the artist does not Jerry

Roger, There are some limitations of course but under the current fair use statutes the UP cannot touch an author making his own private work. With the exceptions of "political speech" as in a parody or lampoon as well as a couple of others, The UP can not only stop the sale, it can sue for damages and fees associated in stopping the individual or company from infringing upon it's patents, tradmarks and/or copyrights. I would refer you to a earlier post (this thread?) where the originator quoted the UP as saying that photos of UP trains could be used but not the separate logos and emblems themselves. There are also some limitations in this area as well and I suspect that photos are one of them. All this is spelled out in Title 15 of the US Code. Title 15 is the biggie when it comes to trade or restraint of trade.

Art

You don't think they let the lawyers and accountants talk to each other???? :-)

Jim

Did you hold the stock registered in your name? or is it in broker's "Street name"? (the later is typical these days)

If the later case, the UP doesn't know about you in particular.

I emailed UPRR Investor Services about this recently and they said they'd mail me a calendar. I've provided my address, but haven't received it yet.

Dave.

YOU GAVE THEM YOUR ADDRESS?!?!?!

Better man the barricades... the UP© Trademark Police© will be showing up any time now to verify that all UP© equipment has been properly licensed and paid for!

-- Joe Ellis ? CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ ||

---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825=============

You don't even want to know what they let lawyers and accountants do with each other. But Jerry and Spanky-Wanky are probably salivating at the thought.

This from the same poster who, in another thread posed the musical question:

QUOTE: Where did the fascist bit come from here? I missed that.

Is ther ANY UP thread here that does not end up in somebody flaming somebody? UNQUOTE

No, gentle reader, it appears the answer to that question is "No."

Richard Albuquerque

The Govt is the only one that has the resources to do that, but they couldn't really get a solid victory on the anti-trust issue, so my feeling is that this one isn't going to fly either.

Kennedy

Kennedy,

1. The Government had that solid victory under the old Clinton administration. Microsoft was legally judged to be a monopoly.
2. The government's antitrust action was for the illegal tying of Microsoft Internet Explorer and Windows 95. {Yeah, that far back}

But between the conviction and the penalty phase, the second George Bush took office and his administration immediately set out to reduce the possible penalties. I really never could figure out why he would do that but perhaps this Op/Ed piece may shed some light.

Art

Didn't an appeals court throw it all out due to some strange stuff the original judge did?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (MrRathburne) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Yep! The appeals court determined that Judge Jackson, the original judge, IIRC, had demonstrated bias against M$. The allowed the conviction to stand but reduced the penalty. Personally, I think that M$ should be broken up into three companies, one for OS's, one for applications, and one for internet services. But, I don't like monopolies.

Woodard,

Very close to the mark on your reply. The appeals court did indeed throw out Jackson's penalty based on his obvious bias. However the appellate court did let the conviction stand. The appellate court ordered Jackson removed and the penalty phase redone. It was during this time frame that the presidency changed and the new Justice Department water down the penalties they were seeking. It is interesting to note that Microsoft is still having trouble (balking) meeting the reduced and agreed upon penalties. Also the new penalty phase judge is concerned that only nine companies have applied for access to the Microsoft OS code to create competing products. It appears that most companies 1. Do not think Microsoft's new licensing terms are much better than the original terms (they are not) or, 2. Microsoft will live up to their agreement with the government once the court stops monitoring them (Microsoft has a long and proud history of bypassing court agreements).

I really could not come up with my own Microsoft penalty but I do also lean towards the breakup into two or more separate entities.

I forgot to mention that the last antitrust case had nothing to do with the EULA that was part of my original post. To further my original statement I would like to add that no company is going to, or be willing to spend the Millions of dollars necessary to fight Microsoft on the EULA when they may have only > strange stuff the original judge did?

Yeah. He spoke straightforwardly about MickeySoft's obstructionism and lies in court. I wish he'd kept his mouth shut ("demonstrated judicial temperament") and tossed Billy Gee and his lawyers into jail for contempt as well as breaking their cojones for their "business" practices (yeah, like the Mafia is a "business").