Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
10-31-2004, 11:17 AM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome) <--Jerry here..
Oh, c'mon! Jerry's entitled to his opinion and he's stated since day one
that he thought the 'girls' were offbase for a site purposefully
associated with a specific product. I don't think he's attacking Nathan.
In fact, I believe Nathan took the girls off the site before this
thing was settled making me think that Nathan might have seen their
point himself. Personally, I can see where DC might have come in and
asked for the two (girls/Jeeps) to be disassociated and legally
requested a cease and desist, but the theft of the URL by DC was WAY
over the top and plain wrong. They bullied Nathan because they could.
Dennis had far more in the way of legal legs to stand on and rightly won
his case. Like it or not, the two cases DO have some similarities as
well as differences. Because of Nathan's case outcome, I feel Dennis'
case is a sweeter victory.
RocknTJ wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> "rubicon" and ---- have nothing to do with each other in this conversation.
> You didn't "state your opinion" you took a cheap shot at Nathan.
> I am thinking more and more Bill is correct. Get some huevos man, if your
> going to take a cheap shot, say so.
>
> --James
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:Hc_gd.71029$bk1.69576@fed1read05...
>
>>James, I stated my opinion, stand by it, and I won't debate it with you.
>>
>>Jerry
>>--
>>Jerry Bransford
>>PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>See the Geezer Jeep at
>>http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
that he thought the 'girls' were offbase for a site purposefully
associated with a specific product. I don't think he's attacking Nathan.
In fact, I believe Nathan took the girls off the site before this
thing was settled making me think that Nathan might have seen their
point himself. Personally, I can see where DC might have come in and
asked for the two (girls/Jeeps) to be disassociated and legally
requested a cease and desist, but the theft of the URL by DC was WAY
over the top and plain wrong. They bullied Nathan because they could.
Dennis had far more in the way of legal legs to stand on and rightly won
his case. Like it or not, the two cases DO have some similarities as
well as differences. Because of Nathan's case outcome, I feel Dennis'
case is a sweeter victory.
RocknTJ wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> "rubicon" and ---- have nothing to do with each other in this conversation.
> You didn't "state your opinion" you took a cheap shot at Nathan.
> I am thinking more and more Bill is correct. Get some huevos man, if your
> going to take a cheap shot, say so.
>
> --James
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:Hc_gd.71029$bk1.69576@fed1read05...
>
>>James, I stated my opinion, stand by it, and I won't debate it with you.
>>
>>Jerry
>>--
>>Jerry Bransford
>>PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>See the Geezer Jeep at
>>http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
10-31-2004, 12:20 PM
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
congrats!!!! i would love to see DC eat crow in this and many other instances
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
10-31-2004, 12:20 PM
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
congrats!!!! i would love to see DC eat crow in this and many other instances
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
10-31-2004, 12:20 PM
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
congrats!!!! i would love to see DC eat crow in this and many other instances
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
where their arrognace outreaches their ability/quality/etc.
frankly, the jeep was the ONLY chrysler vehicle i've owned and liked..
evertythign from their k cars, to neons, to a durango my brother had were crap
:(
congrats!!!
-Steve, former 98 TJ
10-31-2004, 01:13 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome) <--Jerry here..
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message
news:Pe8hd.14366$Al3.12216@newssvr30.news.prodigy. com...
Personally, I can see where DC might have come in and
> asked for the two (girls/Jeeps) to be disassociated and legally
> requested a cease and desist, but the theft of the URL by DC was WAY
> over the top and plain wrong. They bullied Nathan because they could.
>
I am somewhat familiar with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
of 1999, having had to recently protect my business's rights under the Act.
Among other things, the Act prevents unauthorized used of a trademark in a
URL or website. In essence, if someone registers a URL with a protected
trademark as a part of the URL, he or she is infringing on the trademark
and doesn't have a legal right to the URL despite having registered and paid
for it.
> Dennis had far more in the way of legal legs to stand on and rightly won
> his case.
Technically, it was settled...both sides got something they wanted. Though
there was no "victor" per se, I am sure Dennis is very happy with the
outcome.
Like it or not, the two cases DO have some similarities as
> well as differences.
Both cases involved trademark infringement, but that's probably where the
similarities end.
10-31-2004, 01:13 PM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome) <--Jerry here..
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message
news:Pe8hd.14366$Al3.12216@newssvr30.news.prodigy. com...
Personally, I can see where DC might have come in and
> asked for the two (girls/Jeeps) to be disassociated and legally
> requested a cease and desist, but the theft of the URL by DC was WAY
> over the top and plain wrong. They bullied Nathan because they could.
>
I am somewhat familiar with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
of 1999, having had to recently protect my business's rights under the Act.
Among other things, the Act prevents unauthorized used of a trademark in a
URL or website. In essence, if someone registers a URL with a protected
trademark as a part of the URL, he or she is infringing on the trademark
and doesn't have a legal right to the URL despite having registered and paid
for it.
> Dennis had far more in the way of legal legs to stand on and rightly won
> his case.
Technically, it was settled...both sides got something they wanted. Though
there was no "victor" per se, I am sure Dennis is very happy with the
outcome.
Like it or not, the two cases DO have some similarities as
> well as differences.
Both cases involved trademark infringement, but that's probably where the
similarities end.
10-31-2004, 01:13 PM
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome) <--Jerry here..
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message
news:Pe8hd.14366$Al3.12216@newssvr30.news.prodigy. com...
Personally, I can see where DC might have come in and
> asked for the two (girls/Jeeps) to be disassociated and legally
> requested a cease and desist, but the theft of the URL by DC was WAY
> over the top and plain wrong. They bullied Nathan because they could.
>
I am somewhat familiar with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
of 1999, having had to recently protect my business's rights under the Act.
Among other things, the Act prevents unauthorized used of a trademark in a
URL or website. In essence, if someone registers a URL with a protected
trademark as a part of the URL, he or she is infringing on the trademark
and doesn't have a legal right to the URL despite having registered and paid
for it.
> Dennis had far more in the way of legal legs to stand on and rightly won
> his case.
Technically, it was settled...both sides got something they wanted. Though
there was no "victor" per se, I am sure Dennis is very happy with the
outcome.
Like it or not, the two cases DO have some similarities as
> well as differences.
Both cases involved trademark infringement, but that's probably where the
similarities end.
10-31-2004, 01:30 PM
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>Subject: Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.
10-31-2004, 01:30 PM
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>Subject: Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.
10-31-2004, 01:30 PM
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>Subject: Re: Showdown on the Rubicon (outcome)
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.
>From: SpecialOps4x4@webtv.net (Special Ops)
>I am of the opinion Nathan was attacked by D.C. lawyers
>because of Lloyd R. Parker. The babes excuse was just a smoke screen.
>Nathan got into Parker's face, here in this group, and Parker called his
>old student at the law firm, in Atlanta, that represented D.C. She,
>being a fellow tree-hugging liberal, used her position, and D.C.'s money
>and power, to attack Nathan as a personal favor to her old professor.
thanks dennis. some will never accept this due to various reasons having
nothing to do with the case itself, but having personally dealt with these
people i _know_ that what you say is right.