I'll agree Google never forgets. I did some research and the earliest
reference to my 'cheat sheet' was made in August 99 "Questions about
Chinese Teas". It was a 'cheat sheet' till I refered to it as a
Rosetta Stone in July 2003 "Ahmand Tea in UK and in Russia". I think
with some research I was giving transliterations based on that cheat
sheet in 95 but that is also besides the point. All my evidence is
date stamped with Google before it was purloined under the guise of
public domain. I also am an armchair psycho babble analyst so I'll
discount your LTS experience and chaulk it up as a dejavu experience of
what you think you would call it if you did it again. I honestly think
my gleeming of transliterations from foreign cans of tea which I first
called a 'cheat sheet' and then a 'Rosetta Stone' isn't obvious or
public domain. I'm the first to do it in the first two millennia, two
years, 6 months, and some days AD. The webmaster can't answer the
simple question why his Rosetta Stone webpage is so seemingly out of
place because it simply refers to items from a dictionary or person.
It doesn't follow. It's out of context. The only explanation
copyright infringement.
Jim
Derek wrote:
> 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.
|