Re: Java Soft-Real-Time Processor (JSRTProc)

Lew wrote:
Your devolvement into /ad hominem/ argument bespeaks a weakness in your actual case.

Larry K. Wollensham wrote:
You're joking. I'm trying to have a civil discussion here, and to try (with gentle reminders) to keep it within the bounds of civility, and for this you attack me and assert that my arguments are weak?

That is not an attack on you, it's simply pointing out that by avoiding the points I actually made you were failing to defend your arguments. And yes, I do assert that your arguments are weak.

Lew wrote:
you silly person.

Larry K. Wollensham wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I meant that in the nicest way. Perhaps I shouldn't have responded in kind, but the twisting of my argument into something so radically different from what I had said was a silly action.

I point out again that your argument that one shouldn't call SourceForge programmers murderers is valid in and of itself, but has nothing to do with what I claimed.

You can't very well duck the points made, call another person out personally, twist their statements into something completely different, then complain when your flawed rhetoric is exposed.

Justification of actionable behavior on the basis that Sun is unlikely to sue you doesn't make the behavior less actionable or more moral. You have refused over several posts to provide evidence for your assertions, to whit, that SourceForge projects have received permission or not been dinged by Sun's legal department. Instead you have turned arguments on their head and attempted to make the discussion personal. You have failed to acknowledge that those of us espousing non-infringement have stated the difference between referring to compatibility, e.g., "a library for Java programmers", and actually using the trademark in the name of one's product, e.g., "Java Soft-Real-Time Processor".

People are free to disregard Sun's explicit rules for use of their trademark. You are certainly free to try to convince Usenet readers that such practice is both safe and justifiable. I aver that it is neither, and that people risk trouble with Sun if they attempt to do as you suggest.

Perhaps I am mistaken. The real world will determine if I am, for example, by "Vagelis" receiving a notification from Sun that they are violating a trademark by calling their product "Java Soft-Real-Time Processor".

It is a slippery moral slope to suggest that they should try to get away with an apparent infringing behavior because they probably won't get caught.

--
Lew
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sunspots
    ... to us identifiable as coming from the sun, ... 50 feet thick curtain of trees burning burning 500 feet ... confirmed nor even hinted at in labs. ... sort of shit and then assert that it is an actual ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Jonah Goldberg on Darwin Fish
    ... Namely: It's acceptable to assert ... identity and abhorrent to attack it." ... That may be your reason for displaying the Darwin fish, ... a Darwin fish on a Volvo. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Jonah Goldberg on Darwin Fish
    ... Namely: It's acceptable to assert ... identity and abhorrent to attack it." ... Tell that to every creationist that attacks evolution. ... That may be your reason for displaying the Darwin fish, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sunspots
    ... to us identifiable as coming from the sun, ... 50 feet thick curtain of trees burning burning 500 feet ... confirmed nor even hinted at in labs. ... sort of shit and then assert that it is an actual ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Jonah Goldberg on Darwin Fish
    ... They attack evolutionary theory with all manner of pseudoscience and propaganda yet rarely do they ever try to assert their own position scientifically. ... But let me attempt to disentangle: contra Goldberg, it's perfectly acceptable to make fun of other people in a bumper sticker. ... Perhaps the meaning of the Darwin fish has been overanalyzed. ...
    (talk.origins)