Thanks to all for the UP license input.

Because goodwill -- ANY amount -- is earned with difficulty, especially in this day and age, and easily lost, I wonder how UP will react?

Think about the modelers who've expressed displeasure at their attempt to license the use of their intellectual property. While they are on solid legal ground with their actions, some modelers may be in positions to subtly affect UP. Consider:

-- There might be a high school guidance counselor or two among the model railroaders, or career counselors. Among other things, these people suggest career paths for students graduating from high school. They might steer prospective UP employees AWAY from "Uncle Pete."

-- What about someone in a situation to ship merchandise, only to specifically avoid UP?

-- Perhaps the most effective would be the business writer who writes negatively about UP. Subtly, maybe, but enough to swing public opinion against the company.

Those are just what come to mind.

Dieter Zakas

Give us examples of what you started. I don't see any until this message:

I don't think any railroads care what the public thinks of them. If they do, they their PR departments should all be fired.

I think he means in other forums too. He mentions Yahoo etc...... \

Not necessarily. There's plenty of us out here to whom it ISN'T a big deal and, therefore, didn't paticipate in the flame war.

Your "survey" results have the same statistical meaning as if you were to say "Product X must be junk--look at all the calls to the complaints hotline." The fact is that most folks who aren't having a problem with Product X won't call the complaints hotline.

--Dan

Try the posts from 8-27 and 8-29 by Tony Pierson. This assumes you are smart enough to comprehend it is possible to post under multiple screen names at a newsgroup--which I suspect you aren't.

Try the posts from 8-27 and 8-29 by Tony Pierson. This assumes you are smart enough to comprehend that it is possible to post to newsgroups under multiple identities--which I suspect you aren't.

With all due respect to you and your many "identities", I don't believe that its helpful to your cause to be using a variety of fictitious names to comment on a single issue.

If you ever get around to sending an actual letter of protest, it would probably be a good idea to use the name you were born with.

JR Hill

Maybe "Wolfee" is from Chicago: vote early and vote often.

Ed.

in article OT87b.7668$ snipped-for-privacy@kent.svc.tds.net, Jim Hill at snipped-for-privacy@chorus.net wrote on 9/8/03 5:10 PM:

I suspect the BNSF issue comes in part from a former employee who managed to get the internet ownership of the letters BNSF first. Also claimed at one point he owned the logo. Railroad finally outspent him legally. Since then, it appears they've gotten very protective about logos.

Just ask the Dallas brass importer who had a shipment of O scale engines seized a few years ago by the Customs Service due to the Santa Fe logos being on the box. While he eventually got the stuff, it took involvement of elected officials and others, including the railroad.

Railroads and other trademark, copyright, service mark, etc. owners must protect their intellectual property. If they ignore violations, then the property passes into the public domain. Kleenex and Xerox are constantly at war to prevent their names from becoming generic.

The railroads and others do need to protect their logos, etc. from debasement and other negative uses. So, their licensing scheme makes sense: it allow them to say, "NO" to a potential user they don't like and to go after unauthorized users. Maybe even a small fee is justified to cover their costs: probably part of a person all the time. But a fee just to cover their costs is a far cry from .5% of a company's revenue.

Oh, well, maybe we are stuck with it.

Ed.

in article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jim Hollis at snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote on 9/10/03 3:29 PM:

He's got multiple personality disorder and probably mubles to himself a lot, too.

He's just trying to build a consensus.

Then essentially that can be argued to have happened. How many decades have model trains been built with Union Pacific on them? In excess of 70 years to be sure.

Not as likely as you'd think. There is a meeting in Chicago (as part of the International Hobby Expo) of the manufacturers to discuss the issue. In some cases it was reported that some long established companies in fact have open ended permission in writing to produce models. In fact only Kato has paid the "fee".

I just got home from the show a few minutes ago but it's quite likely you will see some kind of unified response by the manufacturubg side of the industry as well as a couple of museums. Basically I'll wait to see how they work this out. I'd suspect that an arrangement such as happened with the Chessie logos is likely to occur.

Dave

snipped-for-privacy@aol.comspamthis (Dave Henk) tickled the keyboard:

So in other words, in the case of modeling, why is it possible for UP to all of a sudden plug up the hole? In theory, isn't it possible for the model manufacturers to attempt to prove that their use of the UP, and other, logo(s) has been allowed by inferrence due to the lack of legal action on the part of the prototype railroads? Maybe another indication of how small the RR model manufacturers are. It's cheaper to pay the fee and pass it along to their customers with another markup than it is to try and fight even a winning battle in the courts against huge corporate law firms.

Bingo.

It's much less hassle for the model makers. They have two options. Band together and fight a battle they'd lose or just raise the cost.

In the end all those logos are trademarked by the Union Pacific and they can legally liscense their usage to whoever they want to. Thats the reality us modellers have to accept. They are a large business and their bottom line is what they look out for. We are not running our railroads as a business and that is difficult for us to accept but that is the way it is.