Comments on: The Smoking Gun http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/ Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:50:32 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: anwalt fuer erbrecht http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-8583 anwalt fuer erbrecht Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:41:31 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-8583 Nice work John, keep up the good work, thanks Nice work John, keep up the good work, thanks

]]> By: Twan http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-7587 Twan Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:47:26 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-7587 More info please. I know I'm not alone. Many are waiting. I guess it's more a passing curiosity that it is a festering concern... but still, Mr. Law... Pretty please with magnesium on top... can we get a little more... What happened? Twan More info please. I know I’m not alone. Many are waiting. I guess it’s more a passing curiosity that it is a festering concern… but still, Mr. Law… Pretty please with magnesium on top… can we get a little more…

What happened?

Twan

]]> By: v http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-4593 v Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:10:50 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-4593 6/28/07: update? v 6/28/07: update?

v

]]> By: Icky Bob http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-539 Icky Bob Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:19:34 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-539 I believe many individuals overvalue the probable widespread attraction of Burning man. For most (especially evangelical xtians, that clearly outnumber “burners” or “liberals”) it’s too strange, too alien. In my opinion putting it in the public domain would set it free to evolve in a stimulating environment. At the very least, the spectacle would be amusing. It would most certainly become something far more interesting (than what it currently is.) Burning man is on a leash. Imagine if earlier cultural & music movements were “owned”, patented & copyrighted in the same way… I believe many individuals overvalue the probable widespread attraction of Burning man. For most (especially evangelical xtians, that clearly outnumber “burners” or “liberals”) it’s too strange, too alien. In my opinion putting it in the public domain would set it free to evolve in a stimulating environment. At the very least, the spectacle would be amusing. It would most certainly become something far more interesting (than what it currently is.)

Burning man is on a leash.

Imagine if earlier cultural & music movements were “owned”, patented & copyrighted in the same way…

]]> By: Jen http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-478 Jen Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:12:40 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-478 All I have to say is that the Burning Man mark should definitely NOT be in the public domain. It's right to think that if the Burning Man symbol is made accessible to the public, the first to get their hands on it will be big corporate business and then EVERYTHING imaginable will have the Burning Man logo on it. I reeeally dont want to see this happen. That is the epitome of selling out! Everyone should agree that it is common sense to refuse to sign a vague, one-paragraph liscense agreement, full of loop holes. I think it is suitable, and find nothing wrong with asking for a more detailed, specified written agreement where all 3 partners split the income and expenses of the business 3 ways. If only one of the partners has been paying the liscense fee for a lengthy amount of time, it makes sense to ask the other business partners to reimburse him the 1/3 amount that each partner is responsible for. Why should all 3 partners be making money from their business, but only one partner be putting money into it? I also think it’s very shady and ugly the way Larry Harvey and his attorney are going about things. It seems like Mr. Harvey is trying to own all of Burning Man for himself, and screw his partners out of any involvement or decision-making. All documents in the business should be agreed upon by all partners, before getting filed. I think making such actions without your partners’ consent or knowledge is the essence of going behind someone’s back and putting the knife in. I hope all three men can come to an amicable agreement. Even more so, I hope Burning Man doesn’t become... something else. You know what I mean. All I have to say is that the Burning Man mark should definitely NOT be in the public domain. It’s right to think that if the Burning Man symbol is made accessible to the public, the first to get their hands on it will be big corporate business and then EVERYTHING imaginable will have the Burning Man logo on it. I reeeally dont want to see this happen. That is the epitome of selling out!

Everyone should agree that it is common sense to refuse to sign a vague, one-paragraph liscense agreement, full of loop holes. I think it is suitable, and find nothing wrong with asking for a more detailed, specified written agreement where all 3 partners split the income and expenses of the business 3 ways.

If only one of the partners has been paying the liscense fee for a lengthy amount of time, it makes sense to ask the other business partners to reimburse him the 1/3 amount that each partner is responsible for. Why should all 3 partners be making money from their business, but only one partner be putting money into it?

I also think it’s very shady and ugly the way Larry Harvey and his attorney are going about things. It seems like Mr. Harvey is trying to own all of Burning Man for himself, and screw his partners out of any involvement or decision-making. All documents in the business should be agreed upon by all partners, before getting filed. I think making such actions without your partners’ consent or knowledge is the essence of going behind someone’s back and putting the knife in.

I hope all three men can come to an amicable agreement. Even more so, I hope Burning Man doesn’t become… something else. You know what I mean.

]]> By: jack lessovitz http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-360 jack lessovitz Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:37:08 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-360 I will always love you john. The purpose of any good nonprofit group is to put itself out of business. If any body should have the right to a space shuttle ticket it's John. I will always love you john. The purpose of any good nonprofit group is to put itself out of business. If any body should have the right to a space shuttle ticket it’s John.

]]> By: nina alter http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-278 nina alter Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:48:02 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-278 Response to the above poster, "Leigh": Undertaking litigation is a very painful process. Running to your mom or dad involves just that- and some whining. By filling the suit as John is, he's essentially wiping his plate clear of anything/everything possibly fun or fulfilling, personally and for his family, for the next couple of years. Litigation is both expensive, and emotionally consuming. John has a new wife, and a new son. If you're wealthy and have "people" to do this stuff for you, as celebrities do, it is like running to your parents. But for John, it's not- and it is a big personal sacrifice he wouldn't do if there were alternatives. Unfortunately it takes 3 willing participants, for 3 people to sit down to a table and resolve their differences. 3 bodies, and 3 vested minds and hearts. As persons grow older and more apart, it's an unfortunate component to human nature that many of us just care less for one another, and/or for common causes we once may have shared a unified interest in. As a friend of John's, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he either tried or considered your proposed simple sit-down for some time, before pursuing the legal route that he recently chose to take. I think that all 3 did the right thing years ago, by creating "Paper Man LLC" as the trademark-arm of Burningman. As things now stand, the system that all 3 parties created for themselves, does dictate that John's actions are indeed the correct actions to now take- given the history of actions on the part of all 3, over the last several years. Response to the above poster, “Leigh”:

Undertaking litigation is a very painful process. Running to your mom or dad involves just that- and some whining.

By filling the suit as John is, he’s essentially wiping his plate clear of anything/everything possibly fun or fulfilling, personally and for his family, for the next couple of years. Litigation is both expensive, and emotionally consuming. John has a new wife, and a new son. If you’re wealthy and have “people” to do this stuff for you, as celebrities do, it is like running to your parents. But for John, it’s not- and it is a big personal sacrifice he wouldn’t do if there were alternatives.

Unfortunately it takes 3 willing participants, for 3 people to sit down to a table and resolve their differences. 3 bodies, and 3 vested minds and hearts. As persons grow older and more apart, it’s an unfortunate component to human nature that many of us just care less for one another, and/or for common causes we once may have shared a unified interest in. As a friend of John’s, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he either tried or considered your proposed simple sit-down for some time, before pursuing the legal route that he recently chose to take.

I think that all 3 did the right thing years ago, by creating “Paper Man LLC” as the trademark-arm of Burningman. As things now stand, the system that all 3 parties created for themselves, does dictate that John’s actions are indeed the correct actions to now take- given the history of actions on the part of all 3, over the last several years.

]]> By: Leigh http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-273 Leigh Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:45:50 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-273 Dear John, Interesting method of dealing with your former friends. I read both M2's legal filings and your legal complaint. I don't claim to understand or know all the details of the history of this conflict. Nor have I chosen sides. But what I do know, is that you are completely wrong about "backroom deals". First of all, it's called "communication without litigation". Egos, power, fame, and fortune get in the way of effective communication. The legal system is the effective equivalent of going to your mother or father to resolve a sibling conflict. When is the last time you three got in a room together (alone), talked about the good old days, had a laugh, had a cry and worked this shit out? Seriously, when is the last time you three hung out together? "Well the man in the hat is a power monger" you might say. Well, be the bigger person then, and have a rational conversation with him. If you really had the Burner community's best interests in mind, you would find a more effective way to work out your differences and solve this problem once and for all. sincerely, Leigh8959 Member and Co-Founder of the Mondo Spider Project www.mondospider.com Dear John,

Interesting method of dealing with your former friends. I read both M2’s legal filings and your legal complaint. I don’t claim to understand or know all the details of the history of this conflict. Nor have I chosen sides. But what I do know, is that you are completely wrong about “backroom deals”. First of all, it’s called “communication without litigation”. Egos, power, fame, and fortune get in the way of effective communication. The legal system is the effective equivalent of going to your mother or father to resolve a sibling conflict. When is the last time you three got in a room together (alone), talked about the good old days, had a laugh, had a cry and worked this shit out? Seriously, when is the last time you three hung out together?

“Well the man in the hat is a power monger” you might say. Well, be the bigger person then, and have a rational conversation with him. If you really had the Burner community’s best interests in mind, you would find a more effective way to work out your differences and solve this problem once and for all.

sincerely,
Leigh8959
Member and Co-Founder of the Mondo Spider Project
http://www.mondospider.com

]]> By: Veektoastia http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-267 Veektoastia Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:40:19 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-267 Best of luck to you, John, and thanks for your efforts. luuvv, Veek Best of luck to you, John, and thanks for your efforts. luuvv, Veek

]]> By: Donald the nut http://johnlaw.laughingsquid.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-263 Donald the nut Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:18:29 +0000 http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-smoking-gun/#comment-263 WOW! I am glad I am in Japan where I am culturally ignorant of such behavior. I was there in the early desert days and beyond! Of course, I was ignorant then too! John, I think you have a good argument and that the name may have already become public domain. If PMLLC didn't make any effort to defend its own intellectual property leaving it to its non-exclusive licensee to decide when and when not to defend and/or abuse the trademark, then I think the case may be able to be made that the trademark is already public domain. Now, can we all just get along? Now, I sound naive as well. WOW! I am glad I am in Japan where I am culturally ignorant of such behavior. I was there in the early desert days and beyond! Of course, I was ignorant then too!

John, I think you have a good argument and that the name may have already become public domain. If PMLLC didn’t make any effort to defend its own intellectual property leaving it to its non-exclusive licensee to decide when and when not to defend and/or abuse the trademark, then I think the case may be able to be made that the trademark is already public domain.

Now, can we all just get along? Now, I sound naive as well.

]]>