On 10 Jan 2005 06:11:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>> Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be any record of him
>> actually making the post he claims to have made in 1995 where he
>> shared his idea. And Google's archive goes back to the April 11, 1995
>> start of this group.
>
> If that is your understanding you're wrong. I used the concept first
> in this group to describe how I determined transliteration of tea terms
> from commercial cans of tea written in Arabic, Chinese, Indian etc
> which had the corresponding English. The fact I did it for decades has
> nothing to do with the establishment of the group.

If it is a misunderstanding, it is based upon what you, yourself, have
written. You are the one who claimed "I first posted about my
cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here in 95" (March 18,
2004, "The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread). Note the date, Jim.

I have read 36 archived posts you made from your email address to this
newsgroup in 1995. Perhaps one of your posts slipped past the archive,
but I can find no evidence that you did, in fact, post about your
cheatsheet in 1995. As far as I can tell, that claim is
unsubstantiated. And yet, you used it to bully Mike for something he
didn't do.

[Note: I said "as far as I can tell." I fully admit that not finding
evidence doesn't mean it exists. Neither does admitting that
limitation mean the reverse.]

Now, by March of 2004, you had very specifically conveyed the idea of
a "rosetta label," but that hardly gives you ownership of the idea.

You may well have been the first person in this newsgroup to mention
the idea, but, by your own admission, you were using it for decades
before this group even existed. Do you seriously think you are the
only one who used both the concept and the term "rosetta" regarding
tea?

I learned of the "rosetta list" concept from my local tea merchant,
not from you. He used it on the labels his tea shipped under. And I
learned about it from him before you ever posted anything about the
idea to this newsgroup.

All of which is moot, because copyright does not protect an idea.
Facts, ideas and words are public domain - unless trademarked or
patented. Copyright doesn't even recognized distinctiveness of the
idea, which is why bookstores have multiple items on the same topic
but from different authors.

He didn't violate your copyright, Jim. Nor did he necessarily have to
get the idea from you. To insist that he must have reeks of delusional
self-aggrandizement.

--
Derek

The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures.