|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > T-Moble Cell to Cingular Service?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
T-Moble Cell to Cingular Service?
|
|
| haybro 2006-08-14, 10:33 pm |
| Daughter pushed into pool with Cingular phone in pocket! RIP!!! I have a T-
Mobile Sony Erricsson T-610 can I switch it to Cingular? If so HOW? Thanks
for any advice.
haybro
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-15, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:12:44 GMT, "haybro" <u25302@uwe> wrote in
<64c821af167f2@uwe>:
>Daughter pushed into pool with Cingular phone in pocket! RIP!!! I have a T-
>Mobile Sony Erricsson T-610 can I switch it to Cingular? If so HOW? Thanks
>for any advice.
You'll need to get it unlocked. Google for such service.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-15, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:11:51 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>Google for such service.
Look for a summons in the mail soon.
See <http://tinyurl.com/fg2oa>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-15, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:43:55 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 9qj3e2tgmj50amca03dv
r08rlame5nml2p@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:11:51 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Look for a summons in the mail soon.
>
> See <http://tinyurl.com/fg2oa>
To google or not to google? It's a legal question
Search engine's sense of humour crashes as it fires off warning
letters over use of name as a verb
Routine protection of trademark.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-15, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:59:02 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
< nnk3e29pv786m1naln5i
nquvif3r4eu3pj@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:43:55 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < 9qj3e2tgmj50amca03dv
r08rlame5nml2p@4ax.com>:
>
>
> To google or not to google? It's a legal question
> Search engine's sense of humour crashes as it fires off warning
> letters over use of name as a verb
>
>Routine protection of trademark.
"Why Google is right to rebuke brand abuse"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/...le_brand_abuse/>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-15, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:59:02 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:43:55 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < 9qj3e2tgmj50amca03dv
r08rlame5nml2p@4ax.com>:
>
>
> To google or not to google? It's a legal question
> Search engine's sense of humour crashes as it fires off warning
> letters over use of name as a verb
>
>Routine protection of trademark.
From the article (emphasis mine):
Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be
evil", has fired off a series of legal letters to media
organisations, warning them against using its NAME AS A VERB.
[...]
They included: "Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check
out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that
hottie."
Therefore, inappropriate: "Google for such service."
Look for a summons in the mail soon. Hope you have a good lawyer.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-15, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:02:20 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 5rr3e2lj25ric1v5uta3
jemn4bpoaet1qb@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:59:02 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>From the article (emphasis mine):
>
> Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be
> evil", has fired off a series of legal letters to media
> organisations, warning them against using its NAME AS A VERB.
> [...]
> They included: "Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check
> out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that
> hottie."
>
>Therefore, inappropriate: "Google for such service."
>
>Look for a summons in the mail soon. Hope you have a good lawyer.
The letters are to "media organizations". Nothing for anyone posting on
Usenet to worry about. No laws broken. No cause of action. Having a
bad day? Run out of coffee? Just making a (lame) joke? ;)
If you really are concerned, see
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metasc...r/domain/tm.htm>
and <http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/int...l#inappropriate>:
For instance, a person who develops a web site that discusses her
experience with Microsoft software may use Microsoft's trademarks to
refer to specific products without fear of infringement.
Move along, folks, nothing more to see. :)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-15, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:34:42 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:02:20 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < 5rr3e2lj25ric1v5uta3
jemn4bpoaet1qb@4ax.com>:
[snip]
>
>The letters are to "media organizations". Nothing for anyone posting on
>Usenet to worry about. No laws broken. No cause of action. Having a
>bad day? Run out of coffee? Just making a (lame) joke? ;)
Lame troll attempt on my part, I guess. :)
I thought it was a bit silly on Google's part and was engaging in a
little satire.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-15, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:53:00 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 3tu3e29sdfcgpllsfa20
h5fh7nu1lmecef@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:34:42 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Lame troll attempt on my part, I guess. :)
>
>I thought it was a bit silly on Google's part and was engaging in a
>little satire.
Got it. Sorry for taking it so seriously. As someone that has worked a
lot in the IP area, what Google is doing didn't/doesn't sound silly to
me -- very valuable trademarks can otherwise be lost. See the follow-up
story I posted:
"Why Google is right to rebuke brand abuse"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/...le_brand_abuse/>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-08-15, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 5rr3e2lj25ric1v5uta3
jemn4bpoaet1qb@4ax.com>,
Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
>
> From the article (emphasis mine):
>
> Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be
> evil", has fired off a series of legal letters to media
> organisations, warning them against using its NAME AS A VERB.
> [...]
> They included: "Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check
> out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that
> hottie."
>
> Therefore, inappropriate: "Google for such service."
>
> Look for a summons in the mail soon. Hope you have a good lawyer.
Bullshit.
What Google is doing is nothing more than standard business practice.
Under the law, one MUST make efforts to protect one's brand name and
image; without making such efforts, one loses protection under the law
for those brands.
Notice I said make efforts. Period. That means they send letters out
to publishers, telling the publishers not to use their name as a verb.
This fulfills the legal requirement that allows them to protect their
intellectual property.
This isn't anything evil or untoward. It isn't anything that any other
business doesn't do every day. This is just BUSINESS.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-15, 10:34 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:44:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article < 5rr3e2lj25ric1v5uta3
jemn4bpoaet1qb@4ax.com>,
> Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>What Google is doing is nothing more than standard business practice.
>
>Under the law, one MUST make efforts to protect one's brand name and
>image; without making such efforts, one loses protection under the law
>for those brands.
>
>Notice I said make efforts. Period. That means they send letters out
>to publishers, telling the publishers not to use their name as a verb.
>This fulfills the legal requirement that allows them to protect their
>intellectual property.
>
>This isn't anything evil or untoward. It isn't anything that any other
>business doesn't do every day. This is just BUSINESS.
I'm gonna xerox a copy of this article after I buy some kleenex and
windex to clean my computer monitor.
|
|
|
|
|