<rejon>
if we can make our toolchain useful for designers, we will be better off
<rejon>
i can get attention from these inkscape devs and more
<rejon>
right now people like matt and architects use autocad and some solid modeling tool like solidworks
<rejon>
anyway, next time wolfspraul and i meet, i want to go over the standard package and some of our basic tools
<rejon>
we shouldn't just have internal tools for chips, but also for case design, etc
<rejon>
anyway, just some thoughts
<rejon>
but is an area we can do 80-85%
<rejon>
we can get the useful linux devs onto our projects if we phrase as design
<rejon>
etc
<rejon>
imo
<wpwrak>
(tools) yeah, i don't have much good stuff there either. i have a halfway decent if a little cryptic toolchain to go from kicad to pcb (all basically 2D)
<wpwrak>
for 3D it's either scripts or (once, for the counterweight) heekscad
<rejon>
can you document it?
<wpwrak>
eventually :) some parts still need changing
<wpwrak>
e.g., the tool (sw and hw) for aligning the machine with the board needs revising. the old design was very sub-optimal and the hardware is coming apart these day
<wpwrak>
plus some makefiles, as usual. and of course the tools that do the actual number crunching
<wolfspraul>
rejon: nice, people seem to like your Ben logo (the character with circle around it) - see the inclusion in the bootscreen proposed by Andrea Bolognani on the list
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: hey, you misunderstand 'registered trademark' in your mail
<wolfspraul>
if a trademark is not registered, that doesn't mean at all that it can be "ignored or ridiculed"
<wolfspraul>
you fell for some propaganda of the legal profession
<wpwrak>
hmm, okay
<wolfspraul>
trademarks in all major jurisdiction are established and solidified through _USING_ them
<wolfspraul>
worst case if a case goes to court you need to demonstrate with a poll or so that people think of your product when they hear a certain expression
<wolfspraul>
the system of 'registrations' was added later to simplify the dispute process
<wolfspraul>
but it's completely broken (the registrations, not trademarks)
<wpwrak>
can you license an unregistered trademark ?
<wolfspraul>
of course
<wolfspraul>
trademarks are coming from real life, they gain value by use and by how widely they are recognized
<wpwrak>
okay, then my statements need editing :)
<wolfspraul>
so for example if a company registers a trademark, but never uses it, it's nearly worthless
<wolfspraul>
at least that was the old idea
<wolfspraul>
of course lawyers want to do more and more registrations
<wolfspraul>
because they can charge fees :-)
<wolfspraul>
like I said, unregistered trademarks are identified with a little (tm) character
<wolfspraul>
that's a 'normal' trademark
<wolfspraul>
a company thinks it's their trademark
<wolfspraul>
registered trademarks are identified with a (r)
<wolfspraul>
the system of registrations was built on top of the idea of trademarks, so there are less disputes, or disputes can be settled more effectively
<wolfspraul>
but it doesn't really work :-)
<wolfspraul>
because any large company will just take you to court and they will proove there that people think of their product, not yours
<wolfspraul>
basically a registration sets a legal papertrail proactively
<wolfspraul>
so you have some starting documents when it goes to court
<wolfspraul>
a lawyer I know worked on the contract between Ferrari and Ferrero for a while, he said it's a multi-hundred page long thing :-)
<wolfspraul>
so this is all taken very seriously in Western markets, and increasingly even in China
<wolfspraul>
so please, NanoNote, Qi, Sharism, Milkymist, are all trademarks
<wolfspraul>
all/most are unregistered
<wolfspraul>
so it's NanoNote (tm), not NanoNote (r)
<wolfspraul>
ok, some excerpt maybe "a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office"
<wolfspraul>
"In some jurisdictions, trademark rights can be established through either or both means. Certain jurisdictions generally do not recognize trademarks rights arising through use. "
<wolfspraul>
I could imagine that for example in China (with a very basic legal system anyway), bringing forward a trademark case for an unregistered trademark is completely hopeless, whereas bringing forward a trademark case for a registered trademark will at least create some activity
<wpwrak>
hmm, i see. okay, with unregistered trademarks, we still get make rule on their use ? the fine detail would be in the copying. (r) also includes similar. (tm) would be more fuzzy. but maybe that's something we can gloss over.
<wolfspraul>
of course, if you 'establish' your trademark through 'actual use in the marketplace', then it's still a trademark you own etc.
<wolfspraul>
you overvalue the registration
<wolfspraul>
maybe lawyer is your secret second hobby? :-)
<wolfspraul>
in fact in many jurisdictions you have to protect your trademark otherwise it ceases to exist as a trademark you own
<wpwrak>
some of the things on that wikipedia article suggest that (r) does give you more power than (tm). beyond merely establishing a paper trail.
<wolfspraul>
that means you have to setup rules how others can or cannot use it, and you have to enforce those rules (again, depends heavily on jurisdiction)
<wpwrak>
yup
<wolfspraul>
certainly a lot of people are working in that direction
<wolfspraul>
(r) is good for (their) business
<wolfspraul>
but as I described above it's also a trap. others will just trample over it, which I have seen first hand.
<wolfspraul>
the lawyers will show up before you, behind you, left and right, and everybody will have an invoice in hand for you.
<wolfspraul>
so I prefer unregistered trademarks, let's call them original and true trademarks :-)
<wolfspraul>
(tm)
<wolfspraul>
established through use in the marketplace
<wolfspraul>
and hey, we have a fairly efficient domain name system too
<wolfspraul>
although it is slowly deteriorating with company top level domains for 500k USD etc.
<wolfspraul>
the marking (tm) and (r) gives you a hint about what was the original way
<wpwrak>
yeah. so (r) is basically a legal snarl
<wolfspraul>
well. every profession tries to grow their business :-)
<wolfspraul>
read the section on "well-known status" for a good laugh
<wolfspraul>
the underlying ideas of trademarks are good imo. it's about avoiding confusion, product quality.
<wolfspraul>
companies should use them and protect them, and if there is a dispute take it to court
<wpwrak>
where all bets are off anyway
<wolfspraul>
the court process should be individual, not automated. the attempt to automate it just creates hot air for nobodys good.
<wolfspraul>
seriously you can close all worldwide trademark registration office
<wolfspraul>
a few thousand people would loose their jobs and could do something more valuable in society
<wolfspraul>
or maybe even a few ten thousand, who knows
<wolfspraul>
the trademark system would even become more efficient and better from it
<wolfspraul>
my opinion
<wolfspraul>
and we think that the 2000 USD registration fee for a USB vendor ID are bad :-)
<wolfspraul>
hey, how about a wiki based trademark system
<wolfspraul>
the power of the people decides who wins
<wolfspraul>
wikitrademark.org
<wolfspraul>
all trademarks are registered and described there. word marks, graphical marks, which industry/product type, etc. etc.
<wpwrak>
yeah. dunno how much of an effective advantage (r) gives you. it's certainly no spell of unvulnerability.
<wolfspraul>
no totally not
<wolfspraul>
/* source inside */ - a true story
<wolfspraul>
fully registered, for 5+ years
<wolfspraul>
so?
<wolfspraul>
Intel doesn't care :-)
<wolfspraul>
you registered it :-) if you believe this gives you some power, fine. here's what we demand from you now: A) B) C) D)
<wolfspraul>
you have 3 days
<wolfspraul>
if you don't, then ... bla bla bla
<wpwrak>
well, elphel vs. intel is extremely mismatched
<wolfspraul>
yes but it was a fully registered and used trademark
<wpwrak>
and it may cost intel a lot to actually win in court (and you, too)
<wolfspraul>
so what is the value of registration again?
<wpwrak>
did elphel try to fight back ?
<wolfspraul>
the registration process has all these levels "opposition phase" etc.
<wolfspraul>
but it's all hot air
<wolfspraul>
no of course not
<wolfspraul>
a 3 person family business
<wpwrak>
so you don't know. they ran at the first bark.
<wolfspraul>
they have zero chance
<wolfspraul>
their mistakes were two:
<wpwrak>
you don't know. maybe intel would find it more efficient to just buy the registered trademark.
<wolfspraul>
a) believe in the registration (waste of money, very little actual legal value, of course the lawyers won't tell you)
<wolfspraul>
b) not see the 'inside' monopolization earlier, they should have just stayed away from it on their own initiative
<wpwrak>
yes, b) is bad. they took a risk.
<wolfspraul>
correct. they are from the industry.
<wolfspraul>
when they registered it, they surely knew "intel inside"
<wolfspraul>
of course they believed in the registration process
<wolfspraul>
but it's just a fake process :-)
<wolfspraul>
it doesn't mean anything
<wolfspraul>
Intel will not take their dispute to the trademark office, why should they.
<wolfspraul>
it's a useless paper pushing office
<wolfspraul>
close it
<wolfspraul>
no harm, no loss
<wolfspraul>
the idea of trademarks is not to monopolize words, but to not allow one company to piggypack their business on another company, by confusing consumers about who is who
<wolfspraul>
disputes are best handled case by case, either directly between businesses, or in court
<wolfspraul>
so the best way imo is to use trademarks established through actual use in the marketplace, and identified with (tm) when possible
<wpwrak>
yes, the obvious "correct use" would be fake products. the problem seems to be in the concept of similarity or confusion of the customer being applied way too liberally
<wpwrak>
fake products in the sense of a wholesale copy of an exiting product or creating a fake product. e.g., an Apple iTV (if that doesn't exist yet)
<wolfspraul>
to be fair to the big corps, when you introduce a new global product/brand, it is nearly impossible to not step onto some small guy somewhere
<wolfspraul>
I believe there was a fairly big company using 'iPad' in Japan, for a point-of-sales system or so. Fujitsu? something like that
<wolfspraul>
but what can Apple do
<wolfspraul>
a separate name for Japan?
<wolfspraul>
so they just move forward, and take the heat
<wolfspraul>
in the case of Fujitsu (or whoever it was), they 'settled' :-)
<wolfspraul>
out of court of course, in private
<wolfspraul>
the trademark was registered (in Japan), was in actual use, was backed by a large company
<wolfspraul>
but in the end it still had to give way, and I think actually it's better for everybody
<wolfspraul>
imagine the iPad being called jPad in Japan
<wolfspraul>
not good
<wolfspraul>
also you can imagine hundreds of smart guys to register iWhatever now in hopes of striking gold one day
<wolfspraul>
which they won't ;-)
<wolfspraul>
they will get a nice nastygram though
<wpwrak>
some may still try. particularly trolls who are lawyers themselves have a bit of an advantage there.
<kristianpaul>
hum, kcryptd ca be a little cpu eating.. i wonder how it can behave on a theorically encrypted fs on the nanonote :-)
<wolfspraul>
but that's a very loose wishlist, just to check back once in a while
<wolfspraul>
your feedback is very welcome of course
<kilae>
thx, I mean milestones or something similar
<wolfspraul>
it's not very systematic, people work on various things
<kilae>
okay, and what's the process of a hardware update?
<wolfspraul>
there is no process, one day a set of features needs to emerge that makes sense
<wolfspraul>
for example I am currently working on the Milkymist One, and while that took many times longer than expected, it will take longer still :-)
<wolfspraul>
kilae: what are you trying to do or find out?
<wolfspraul>
do you have a Ben? are you waiting for the Ya - which features do you think the Ben should have that it doesn't have now?
<kilae>
no, but I want to find out whether it's worth!
<wolfspraul>
which one, the Ben NanoNote or something else?
<wolfspraul>
the Ben NanoNote was introduced in March 2010, and continues to sell and will continue to sell
<wolfspraul>
it's a great device, imo. of course because I worked so hard on it :-)
<wolfspraul>
for me I make a new device, say 'successor', when I believe I can make something truly better
<kilae>
thanks for the infos
<wolfspraul>
kilae: what do you want to do with the NanoNote?
<wolfspraul>
and what are you comparing it to?
<antoniodariush>
ac
<kilae>
wolfspraul: I have a freerunner and a dingoo, and I want to make a wireless linux device
<antoniodariush>
sorry ignore that
<wolfspraul>
freerunner too, wow
<kyak>
i heard about problems with "g" letter on new Bens. But here i have an opposite problem - the "g" is not sensitive enough on an older Ben
<kyak>
it wasn't always like this
<kyak>
i waited several weeks for this problem to disappear, but it wouldn't
<kyak>
(of course i used Ben during this time)
<kyak>
it's really annoying, what can i do?
<wpwrak_>
kyak: maybe put a bit of paper under the G button ?
<wpwrak_>
that would reduce the distance it has to travel
<wpwrak_>
but in general it probably means the dome is damaged
<kyak>
wpwrak_: hm, piece of paper, i'll try that!
<kyak>
(dome damaged) could be, i'm not very gentle with my electronic devices
<rjeffries>
tuxbrain fyi Zigduinio does not use an xbee module. It uses the Amtel ATmega128RFA1
<wpwrak>
the atmega128rfa1 has the same transceiver as atben/atusb. the MCU has four times the flash and 16 times the RAM. lacks USB, though.
<wpwrak>
if you want to run complex software (such as contiki) inside the MCU, then it's a good choice.
<wpwrak>
if you need USB and try to keep the firmware lean, then the atmega32u2 is the better choice :)
<wpwrak>
(xbee) if i rememeber right, most of these are antenna connection variations. if you're not afraid of briefly using a soldering iron, you can have about four such variants per board. (the original design just leaves the antenna connection choice open)