Actually, Anthony, you're wrong in saying that laws are broken when information about patents and trademarks is provided -- so long as that information appears in the publicly available databases provided by the USPTO. What's illegal is revealing information that doesn't appear in the public domain. I did the former, not the latter. So there. Oops, one more thing: the law you quoted has to do with confidentiality of APPLICATIONS. Already-granted trademarks and patents are public information. That's the POINT of having trademarks and patents. But surely you know that!?! I'm reminded of the days when you threatened Bill Bauer with all kinds of legal trouble. Now, you're insinuating similar stuff with me. I can really tell that you used to work as a debt collector. Needless to say, I'm shakin' in my boots, LOL. Finally, you should know that "controlling" domain names (as you put it) isn't the same thing as applying for or holding a trademark, service mark, or patent. Moreover, you don't "control" the domains, you simply register them. Semantics aside, what in the world does registering domain names have to do with this conversation anyway? Ok, I'm done interacting with you, oh threatening one. One thing I learned while completing my doctorate in clinical psychology: When people start threatening, it usually means they feel pretty threatened. Calm down. Doc
Re: Whoopsâ?¦ OH, don't close this thread. Anthony is about to unleash one of his famous tirades against anyone having the temerity to question him in any way, shape or form. Why is it that the word [/i]fascist[/i] keeps resurfacing in this thread? Strange!!!!!
Doc: Threatening? LOL, you must be joking! Why would I want to â??threatenâ? you for attempting to discover material that is held confidential, by Federal mandate? I think you misunderstand my sentiment, Doc, and in so doing expose your own feelings of dread. Granted I admit being slightly glib, but menacing? Well, Hair Doctor (thatâ??s another play on words, so we donâ??t misunderstand each other), perhaps youâ??d consider re-discovering your â??doctorateâ? material? Because I certainly took no offense to your statements (or inquiries), and encourage you not to with mine. Now which of us should â??calm down?â? [;-)
Ok, I'll calm down, LOL. Doc P.S. What's up with your hair, Anthony? It's looking a bit more unkempt today than usual...
Shall We Dance? All: Hmmmâ?¦ Perhaps the good PsychDoc wonâ??t mind my quoting his â??clinical opinionâ? for the basis of threatening conduct? Seems appropriateâ?¦ Although if you donâ??t find that suitable, hereâ??s a â??quoteâ? for ya: PS: Thanks for being a good sport, Doc.
I doubt he was really trying to threaten you Doc, but your understanding of the law, is correct. As for the complaint filed with the AG against Bill Bauer: It's a non-starter. Nothing will come out of it. Saar
Re: Whoopsâ?¦ chelechele: We have requested necessary information from you by email twice and you have failed to respond. Until we receive the requested information we cannot proceed. Are we having email problems somewhere along the line? This issue should have been taken up privately in email in my opinion
Re: Whoopsâ?¦ Woo hoo!! if this keeps up this thread will hit 100 posts tonight!! A record?? valiums for everybody..... o o o o o o o o o o o o o breeze
Re: Whoopsâ?¦ Three points: 1) LOL, Breeze! 2) Saar, true, true. 3) Greg Fisher, inquiring minds want to know. Doc
