(OT) Is Sikorsky Doing This?
jerry 47
I got a msg from eBay telling me an auction for a 1/100 Tamiya Sky Crane was
cancelled because of a veRo program. As I understand it, veRo is their
copyright infringement program. Did Sikorsky make the Sky Crane? Is this
why this item was pulled?
Jerry 47
Rob Gronovius
>why this item was pulled?
>Jerry 47
Jerry, look at the thread entitled funny ebay thing (or something like that).
Apparently they are killing all aucitons of any type of helicopter they own
rights to.
Rob Gronovius
Visit my motor pool in the www.armorama.com gallery
WmB
I don't know what the rest of you are going to do, but first chance I get I'm going to buy
every $%^& unlicensed Sikorsky model product I can get my hands on just to shit Suck-orsky
out of a dollar.
Good thing few people where hamburgs anymore or they'd be suing them off their heads.
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there
HELLi...@earthlink.net
Bill Banaszak
I thought maybe their search bot was tuned to Revell but apparently they
home on 'Skycrane' too. I even went into my auction and deleted the
Sikorsky reference. I should have tried deleting the name and gone with
CH-64. I just wasn't sure how many would know what that was. SOBs!
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bad-Boy
Just thinking that if they've a bot searching for references and then using
people to confirm it, then a person may be tempted to put the S-word (!)
into EVERY title - of course explaining the item is NOT an S-word and does
NOT infringe S-word's copyright.
The costs would VERY quickly out-weigh the benefits.
Of course I am NOT suggesting anyone break any rules, I am asking if their
IS a rule that would prevent it :-)
"Bill Banaszak" <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3FC06409...@verizon.net...
famv...@webtv.net
civil version & CH-54 Tarhe for the military.
Jer038
their tables too.
I can see it now--Guys selling Sikorsky kits from the trunks of their cars at
the next swapmeet or from under a trenchcoat in the vender room!
J.B.
John Benson
>home on 'Skycrane' too. I even went into my auction and deleted the
>Sikorsky reference. I should have tried deleting the name and gone with
>CH-64. I just wasn't sure how many would know what that was. SOBs!
>
Funny I thought they had sold the S-64 Type certificate to Ericson hence the
"Ericson Skycrane". Perhaps they just licensed the name out.
John Benson --------<mabe...@whc.net>------<DZa...@AOL.com>----------
IPMS El Paso Web Guy
http://www.ipmselpaso.org
Rob Gronovius
Right now Sikorsky is tracking down all likenesses of their helicopters on
Ebay. Wouldn't matter if you put a name or numeric designation with it.
Gray Ghost
news:fW0wb.1634$s61....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
Actually they can be put in invisibly. I've had fairly specific searches
come up with seemingly unrelated items. Turns out the clever fella embedded
many possible search words (often just names of all kinds of model makers)
in the page using white text on a white background. You can't see it, but
the search engine can.
Not that I'm suggesting you people monkey wrench these greedy corporate
scumbags this way...
Frank
Eyeball2002308
>the search engine can.
>
>Not that I'm suggesting you people monkey wrench these greedy corporate
>scumbags this way...
if you can find it in a search,so can they...
Ives100
>Ebay. Wouldn't matter if you put a name or numeric designation with it.
I'm really unclear on the legal aspect of this. Presumably, some model company
(e.g., Revell) has payed for a license to reproduce a MODEL of a Sikorsky
aircraft. Someone then purchases the model from the modeling company (not
Sikorsky), which carries the Sikorsky name as a descriptor (Again, presumably
licensed as such). In this instance, the resale of said purchased model is
being blocked by SIkorsky?? If they are that concerned about the use of their
name, shouldn't they be blocking the sale of such models at the source (i.e.,
the original company producing the model)? By licensing the rights to produce
a model to a "craft" company, doesn't Sikorsky forfeit any claims on control of
sales of these kits?
I would think their legal department might have better things to do, like
tracking down the sale of counterfeit parts that could end up in real Sikorsky
products, not plastic scale models.
Tom Dougherty (Ive...@aol.com)
Ron
background on *every* auction.......LOL
Gray Ghost
sometimes the "indirect" approach is more effective.
Perhaps the people who actually work for a living, after being queried
mulitple times by irate citizens may decide that the lawyers are an
albatroos.
Not that I've ever done anuthing like this and had it work before.
Or that I'm suggesting that moderllers worldwide deluge the good people of
Sikorsky concerning the possiblity that Sikorsky has gone 'round the bend.
Harrumph. Cough-cough.
If there's enough interest I'll maybe clean up the file and post it on the
web. Or go to Sikorsky.com and go to contact us. If ever someone gsve the
oppostion weapons...
Frank
Category Office Phone Fax Email
Contacts For New Sikorsky Customers
US Government Customers (202) 336-7482 USG...@utc.corpdc.com
Worldwide Sales (203) 386-4282 intern...@sikorsky.com
Contacts For Existing Sikorsky Customers
S-76 Office (203) 386-7622 S76Pr...@Sikorsky.com
S-92 Office (203) 386-4724 S92Pr...@Sikorsky.com
COMANCHE Office (203) 383-3340 Comanch...@Sikorsky.com
BLACK HAWK Office (203) 386-4208 BHPr...@Sikorsky.com
SEAHAWK Office (203) 386-5366 SHPr...@Sikorsky.com
CH/MH53E Office (203) 386-7595 53Pr...@Sikorsky.com
All Other Customer Information 1-800-WINGED-
S Prog...@Sikorsky.com
Worldwide Customer Service
Business Development
US Government Customer Support Frank DiPasquale (203) 386-6877 (203)
386-7069 fdipa...@sikorsky.com
International/Civil Customer Support Karen Pike (203) 795-6051
x3310 (203) 799-5020 karen...@hsius.com
Customer Service Managers
Manager U.S. Gov't / FMS
Customer Service Todd Shields (203) 386-3331 (860) 998-
7511 tshi...@sikorsky.com
Manager Black Hawk Programs John Roth (203) 386-6771 (860) 998-
7335 jr...@sikorsky.com
Manager U.S. Army Modernization George Klein (203) 386-4611 (860) 998-
7471 gkl...@sikorsky.com
Manager U.S. Army/Air Force Programs Rex Spencer (203) 386-7997 (860)
998-8829 rspe...@sikorsky.com
Manager Maritime Programs Victor Buccieri (203) 386-7113 (860) 998-
7484 vbuc...@sikorsky.com
Manager Foreign Military Sales Brainard Locke (203) 386-5608 (860) 998-
7503 blo...@sikorsky.com
Manager U.S. Navy/In Service Dave Popp (203) 386-3606 (860) 998-
7514 dp...@sikorsky.com
Manager U.S. Navy MH-60S Rich Gaede (203) 386-6901 (860) 998-
7505 rga...@sikorsky.com
Manager U.S. Navy MH-60R Steve Kenning (203) 386-7632 (860) 998-
7504 sken...@sikorsky.com
Manager Technical Service R. Jim Kennedy (203) 386-3694 (860) 998-
7473 rjke...@sikorsky.com
Heavy Lift Programs
Customer Service Managers
Manager Heavy Lift Programs Jonathan Davis (203) 386-5698 (860) 998-
7490 jda...@sikorsky.com
CH/MH-53E/Israel Chuck Duncan (203) 386-4006 (860) 998-
7517 cdu...@sikorsky.com
Japan S-70/S-80/HSS-2B Rob McBride (203) 386-5638 (860) 998-
7797 rlmc...@sikorsky.com
CH-53D/G/MH-53J/H-3 Joseph Fifer (203) 386-3798 (860) 998-
7513 jfi...@sikorsky.com
International Contacts
Director of Operations International H60
Logistic & Depot Program Management Joseph Homza (203)386-
3099 (860)998-7493 jho...@sikorsky.com
Mideast/Africa
Logistic Program Manager Michael Gartland (203)386-7904 (860)998-
7483 mgar...@sikorsky.com
Australia/ Korea/ Singapore
Logistic Program Manager Tim Brinkerhoff (203)386-5570 (860)998-
7474 tbrink...@sikorsky.com
Turkey
Logistics Program Manager Drew Bodington (203)386-5763 (860)998-
7489 dbodi...@sikorsky.com
Europe/ Sinapore
Logistics Program Manager Sal Fiducia (203)386-6279 (860)998-
7491 sfid...@sikorsky.com
South American/ Columbia
Logistics Program Manager John Gow (203)386-4147 (860)998-
4587 jg...@sikorsky.com
Field Service Operations Field Service Operations Manager 203-386-
3773 203-386-6789 FSO...@sikorsky.com
Field Operation Center Business Manager 203-386-7931 203-386-
7822 FOCBusi...@sikorsky.com
Jacksonville Field Op. Center Manager 904-741-3993 x101 904-741-
6497 FOCMgrJac...@Sikorsky.com
North Island Field Op. Center Manager 619-437-0587 619-435-
5081 FOCMgrNorthIsland@Sikorsky
Field Teams Manager 203-386-3631 203-386-
7822 FieldT...@sikorsky.com
MATERIAL SUPPORT CONTACTS
Material Support Managers
Material Operations Manager Robert A. Kokorda 203-386-3486 203-386-
7548 RKok...@sikorsky.com
Spares Quotations, Orders,
and DLA Program Manager Jack Doherty 203-386-5105 203-386-
7548 JDoh...@sikorsky.com
International Service Provider Team
Manager Gary Chuba 203-386-5411 203-386-7928 GCh...@sikorsky.com
U.S. ARMY SERVICE PROVIDER TEAM
EMERGENCY QUOTES/BUYS, EXPEDITES, AND STATUS REQUESTS
Material Services Representative John Lonergan 203-386-7433 203-386-
7928 JLon...@sikorsky.com
Material Services Representative Sharon Siegmund 203-386-7763 203-386-
7928 SSie...@sikorsky.com
DLA/DVD CORPORATE CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDER TEAM
EMERGENCY QUOTES/BUYS, EXPEDITES, AND STATUS REQUESTS
DLA Program Manager Jack Doherty 203-386-5105 203-386-
7548 JDoh...@sikorsky.com
Material Services Representative Steve Kelly 203-386-7447 203-386-
7928 SKe...@sikorsky.com
U.S. NAVY/AIR FORCE/COAST GUARD SERVICE PROVIDER TEAM
EMERGENCY QUOTES/BUYS, EXPEDITES, AND STATUS REQUESTS
Material Services Representative Jim Vagnini 203-386-3539 203-386-
7928 JVag...@sikorsky.com
Material Services Representative Chris Levanti 203-386-7003 203-386-
7928 CLev...@sikorsky.com
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER TEAM
ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY QUOTES/BUYS, EXPEDITES, AND STATUS REQUESTS
Material Services Representative Pete Kriksciun 203-386-4277 203-386-
7928 PKrik...@sikorsky.com
Material Services Representative Linda Gustafson 203-286-6149 203-386-
7928 LGust...@sikorsky.com
Routine Requests for Quote and Purchase Orders
Material Services Representative
U.S. Government Barbara Borger 203-386-7260 203-386-
7548 BBo...@sikorsky.com
Helicopter Support, Inc Meg Stevenson 203-386-
7540 MStev...@sikorsky.com
Japan Marianne Vass 203-386-4069 203-386-7548 MV...@sikorsky.com
Overhaul & Repair Contacts
Director George Mitchell 203-924-5015 203-924-
5047 GMit...@sikorsky.com
O&R Planning/Operations Manager Ed Cox 203-924-5176 203-924-
5047 EC...@sikorsky.com
Manager of O&R Programs Peter Cutler 203-924-5205 203-924-
5047 PCu...@sikorsky.com
Commercial/Intl. Programs Manager Deborah Torrice 203-924-5169 203-924-
5114 DTor...@sikorsky.com
U.S. Navy Programs Manager Leonard Krohelski 203-924-5055 203-924-
5047 LKroh...@sikorsky.com
U.S. Army, Airforce & Military
Programs Manager Ann Williams 203-924-5221 203-924-
5047 AWil...@sikorsky.com
Training Contacts
Training Manager James Oram 203-384-7067 jo...@sikorsky.com
Commercial Training Manager Chuck Baker 203-384-
7022 cba...@sikorsky.com
International Training Kenneth Joyner 203-384-
7356 kjo...@sikorsky.com
International Training Bill Hicks 203-386-
4449 whi...@sikorsky.com
U.S. Navy Programs Robert Woodward 203-384-
7017 Rbwoo...@sikorsky.com
U.S. Army Programs Paul Robinson 203-384-
7123 pjrob...@sikorsky.com
Warranty Contacts
Warranty Manager 203-386-3096 203-386-
6226 Warra...@sikorsky.com
U.S. Government Claims 203-386-7245 203-386-
6226 Warran...@sikorsky.com
S70/International Claims 203-386-6283 203-386-
6226 WarrantyIn...@sikorsky.com
Licensing Opportunities Office Of Licensing And Technology (203) 386-
6046 licen...@sikorsky.com
Media and Press Relations
BLACK HAWK, S-92, H-92 Sheena Steiner (203) 386-4329
ssteiner...@sikorsky.com
S-76, Naval Hawk, Worldwide Customer Service, Fractional Ownership,
FIREHAWK
Bill Tuttle (203) 386-3829 btu...@sikorsky.com
H-53, Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), Shanghai Sikorsky
Shawn Watson (203) 386-3453 swa...@sikorsky.com
Comanche Ed Steadham (203) 384-7538 este...@sikorsky.com
General company/all other inquiries Matt Broder (203) 386-
7143 mbr...@sikorsky.com
Shanghai Sikorsky Aircraft
Company pub...@shanghaisikorsky.com
For general inquiries, comments, questions or concerns, please contact:
24-7 Contact Sikorsky
1-800-946-4337
1-800-WINGED-S
For Commercial/Civil customer support, please contact :
Helicopter Support, Inc.
124 Quarry Road
P.O. Box 111068
Trumbull, CT 06611-0868
Phone: 203-416-4000
Corporate Fax: 203-416-4291
Accounting Fax: 203-416-4296
3Helicopter Support, Inc.
89 Marsh Hill Road, Orange, CT 06477
Phone: 203-795-6051
Fax: 203-799-5020
E-Mail : wcs...@sikorsky.com
Fax : 860-998-8755
For Technical Support, Call 203-386-3003
Gray Ghost
Now Ron, I'm suggesting that was my intention. Nor would I suggest that
such monkey wrenching be used. But the latest count of plastic models
exceeds 450,000. If that little mousetrap was in each and every one that
lawyer wouldn;t have time to pee he'd be so bust.
Not that I'm suggesting that as a way of spoiling his legal woodie.
Frank
Unamodeler
Guess that my next Ad on Ebay will have to be headlined:
"Sickorsky".......??? With poor spelling becoming pandemic
I am sure that the bidders would know what I intended..........
Let's extend this issue a bit more. Let's say that you just
finished building a Farley Fruitbat XIV and contribute JPGs
of your efforts to one of the netzines such as Modeling
Madness. Will M2 receive a note from the Farley Folks?
Will You?? After all - it is an IMAGE of their PRODUCT.
Or, here's another possibility: What about those pictures
you took of the Fruitbat which had been hit by an "Iron
Beaver" missile somewhere over Ontario??
You want to share them with other aficionados here on the
net. Do you have to contact the Farley legal department
and pay royalties before you can publish these images?
Worse yet, what is going to happen when you use the "F"
word while extolling the combat record of the "F-F-XIV"
in your doctorial dissertation? Will the fees be added to
your academic costs?
Yah - right! America needs to close down all the law
schools. Maybe a brief hiatus of thirty years or so? It
is becoming more and more evident that we have an
overabundance of these critters just out looking for new
ways to create more income for themselves.
BTW - check the Boeing Ad in the latest FSM which another
correspondent mentioned. The last line is printed in very,
very fine print:
"Produced under license from Boeing Management Company,
Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, McDonnell Aircraft, Douglas Aircraft,
North American Aviation, Stearman, and other distinctive
airplane liveries, logos, and product markings are among the
trademarks owned by Boeing."
Hell! I'm surprised that they haven't tried to register the term
"Aircraft" or "Helicopter" while they were at it................
Time to climb down off my soapbox. The rarified air is spiking
my blood pressure.............
~Rick Fluke
Hangar 3 Arlee
Ron
Bill Banaszak
I agree with your last paragraph. I think the problem is that the model
companies went to measure a chopper at a military installation and
didn't need Sikorsky for that. I find nothing wrong with that. It was
a piece of publicly owned equipment. My Skycrane kit dates back to the
late '60s, I think, and they weren't worrying themselves about crap like
this then. The problem is that we keep thinking in terms of right and
wrong and lawyers don't think that way.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak
Wanna buy a Skycrane kit? :)
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Luca Beato
>
>I would think their legal department might have better things to do, like
>tracking down the sale of counterfeit parts that could end up in real Sikorsky
>products, not plastic scale models.
>Tom Dougherty (Ive...@aol.com)
Holy words, Tom. You remind me some bad stories heard about spare parts used on Agusta licence-built Sikorsky® machines in south american countries. They came neither from Agusta nor Sikorsky®, in spite of all the efforts put in from both discovering who marketed them...
I just wonder if those lawyers wull worry also about items auctioned through local Ebay websites, say: www.ebay.fr, www.ebay.de, www.ebay.co.uk, www.ebay.it.
International lawsuit to forbid free advertising of their customer's brand would be rather paradoxical.
I know that morons' mothers are always pregnant, but...
--
Luca Beato - http://members.xoom.it/huey/
FAQ del plastimodellismo su http://www.ipmsitaly.com/faq/modelfaq.html
Don Van Hook
dvh
Scott A. Bregi
marked helicopter. The "skycrane" and anything that is U.S. Army (DOD) is
considered public domain and they are not allowed to hold license on
anything that is government owned in the first place. Just label it under
the Army designation of "CH" or "UH" or what ever designation. They don't
own that because that is the property of Uncle Sam.!
--
Scott A. Bregi
Model Building is FUN!.........model building is fun.......model building is
?$#!!*?##!%$?&%$##!!
"Ives100" <ive...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031123141700...@mb-m17.aol.com...
e
>Wanna buy a Skycrane kit? :)
>
>Bill Banaszak, MFE
Ives100
>marked helicopter.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but apparently some folks are having their model
sales blocked on Ebay due to some hyper active lawyers at Sikorsky. So, they
are doing diddly by interfering with sales of model kits they had nothing to
with at the manufacturing end. If this is such a legal issue with Sikorsky,
why don't they (try to) block the kit manufacturers? Given that these kits
have been around for years with no cries from Sikorsky, what is the sudden
problem?
Sudden random thought: It couldn't be that their lawyers don't know these are
plastic model kits but instead are trying to block the sale of what they (or
their computer search bots) think are possible counterfeit helicopter parts...
no, no one is that stupid....
Tom Dougherty (Ive...@aol.com)
Mark Schynert
Bill Banaszak <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The problem is that we keep thinking in terms of right and
> wrong and lawyers don't think that way.
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bingo. So how do they think?
Mode 1: Can I (or my client) make money off of this? This is the
negotiating/ arm-twisting mode, in which a lawyer calculates whether
assertion of his client's apparent rights will be to his client's (and
therefore his own) benefit. It's not as bad as it sounds, because there
is an issue of cost-effectiveness. Smart attorneys only stay in this
mode if it looks like it will maximize client benefit for minimum
effort, which it frequently does, especially when the other party is
rich and knows it's been caught with its pants down, or is an insurance
company with scaredy-cat risk managers.
Mode 2: Is there a slam-dunk action here, no matter how recalcitrant the
opponent, which is worth pursuing? Similar to 1 above, but the attorney
will not let up (indeed, he is ethically bound not to let up) until the
courts slap him down, the other side agrees to settle, or the matter is
resolved by judge or jury. These cases are relatively rare.
Mode 3: What does the law say? Note that the law has a lot in it that is
not precisely 'right' or 'wrong.' For this you can thank legislators,
bureaucrats, presidents, justices and honest citizens like yourself who
vote by referendum. Attorneys are not trained to be theologians and
argue the Christian virtues of this law or that, unless there is an
existing legal theory that happens to travel the same path. And the rare
attorney who so argues will lose every time, just like that chief
justice in Alabama. You want right and wrong?--go talk to a priest. You
want justice?--go talk to God.
Mode 4: What do I have to do to protect my client's legal rights, even
if it won't make money? This is the mode of attorneys at their most
antagonistic. The Sikorsky remora fits this mold; he evidently has
concluded that he needs to queer every Sikorsky-related sale on EBay
because it's necessary to protect Sikorsky's right to object to misuse
of its trademark. It's a blunderbuss approach. The abusive nature of it
may not be intended, but since EBay is compliant to the point of
spreading them, maximum damage is being rendered to a variety of
commercial transactions for the sake of tokenistic protection, and at
the apparent risk of restraining trade illegally if these efforts at
protection were not made in a timely manner. Were I directly affected by
this, I'd be a lot more pissed at EBay than at Sikorsky, but that's
another thread.
Mode 5: What can I do to screw over a bunch of folks because I'm an
attorney and they're not? I have actually met lawyers like this, though
not many. They are power-hungry fools who inevitably come a cropper
because they piss off all other attorneys. The only thing worse than
pissing off all the attorneys in the area where you practice law is
getting a federal judge on your bad side. I've seen someone do that too.
Did you know that a federeal judge can lock you up just because you made
her angry? It's called contempt of court, and state judges do it too,
but the state judges tend to be a lot more lenient, because they have to
stand for election. Federal judges are in for life.
So, that's how attorneys think. There will be a test.
Mark Schynert
Hub & Diane Plott
Hub
"Gray Ghost" <fta...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943C96AFD2E94We...@216.196.97.136...
Gray Ghost
EB6033.182...@news04.west.earthlink.net:
Even though I don't disagree with any of this I have a few questions.
One. How long have Sikorsky helos been kitted. The Revell Skycrane has to
35 years old. Didn't Aurora have one before then? Don't you lose claim if
you don't assert it within a reasonable time frame. Weren't a lot of the
older kits "Scaled from original blueprints!"? Sort of implies cooperation.
Two. There is the issue of the vehicles being government contracted. As
noted earlier military aircraft/vehicles/etc can't be copyrighted. By
definition they are in the public domain.
Three. OK they want to protect the name. But how? If I say "this is a model
of a military helicopter with the military designation CH-53 origianlly
maufactured by Igor Sikorsky's company" how could they stop me? It is
nothing more than a statement of fact. And isn't the real object supposedly
the original maker/seller? Academy, Revell, Hasegawa, Tamiya, Airfix,
Italeri, etc all make models of Sikorsky aircraft. They were bought in good
faith by modellers who found them in readily available venues that had
operated for over 40 years. Truly if Sikorsky has a beef it's with the
makers. But for the claim to be valid they would have to pursue all of
them. But individual sellers froma personal stash? If they want to suppress
them, perhaps they should be prepared to buy up all existing stocks of
Sikorsky models.
Given the lack of standing perhaps we could hit them with restraint of
trade.
Frank
Bill Banaszak
#4. If this is a blunderbuss approach then all of us little guys are
merely collateral damage.
I'm with Mark on the E-bay point. They just fold when anyone pressures
them.
Bill Banaszak
famv...@webtv.net
been mentioned elsewhere, this is the same as an individual selling a
used Ford car, Johnson boat, Cessna airplane, B & D saw, Stanley hammer,
GIJoe, Hot Wheels, etc. What is theirs & eBay's point??
SamVanga
>web. Or go to Sikorsky.com and go to contact us. If ever someone gsve the
>oppostion weapons...
I think I'll drop them a line, and CC my elected representatives and the local
papers. If it gets a dditional attention, excllent. If not, I'm willing to
drop a dollar or two on extra postage.
Dana J Nield
> sometimes the "indirect" approach is more effective.
>
> Perhaps the people who actually work for a living, after being queried
> mulitple times by irate citizens may decide that the lawyers are an
> albatroos.
>
> Not that I've ever done anuthing like this and had it work before.
> Or that I'm suggesting that moderllers worldwide deluge the good people of
> Sikorsky concerning the possiblity that Sikorsky has gone 'round the bend.
> Harrumph. Cough-cough.
I would love to see this on 60 Minutes. :)
famv...@webtv.net
for about the last 15 years, bogus parts have been a hot issue. You
woudn't believe just how extreme the FAA will go to prove a a part is
bogus, just due to a sticker or something. And fine mechanics & shops,
etc., tens of thousands of dollars & even jail time. Problem with bogus
parts is that they sometimes end up in the original manufacturer's lap
in the lawsuits. Maybe these pricks at Sikorsky aren't even looking at
the item itself. I remember a couple of things. I read many years ago
that one of Aurora's main sources of info for a/c was the magazine
"Aviation Week & Space Technology". If you were in the aviation field,
you got a cheaper subscription. Aurora claimed to be something like
"manufacturer of small aircraft parts". There you have it, "parts". On a
serious side, about a dozen years ago, some outfit picked up a batch of
surplus gears for Bell OH-58 transmissions. They also fit civil Bell
206s. Sold them all. A civil 206 crashed about 200 hrs. later & the
pilot was killed. During the investigation, the gear was found stripped.
It was made of aluminum. The Feds went to Bell. "Nope, it's cast iron."
"Well, this one's aluminum, but it has all the same casting numbers &
part numbers." Hmm. After lots & lots of tracking down the source, it
was found that this shop had bought them surplus. Nobody noticed they
weighed differently. It was found that the US Army had sub-contracted
with a shop to make cast aluminum versions of the cast steel versions,
since with them, money's no object & they'll replace them every 100
hours instead of every 1,000 hours for the steel one, this way they can
carry 2 pounds more of fuel or something. Sikorsky's concern may very
well be valid, just misdirected here. 'Course, we all know that the road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Chris
I'm going out on a limb here and being Australian all I know about the US
legal system has been learnt from some of your fine drama series like CSI,
The Practise and Judge Judy.
I have been following this thread since the start and I have just thought,
is there any Statute of Limitations that would apply to this? Seems to me
that Sikorsky could really only go after any kits that are in current
production. Again, my limited understanding of your legal system would mean
that they couldn't touch the Italeri kits that I have in my stash that went
out of production 10 years ago, or the 48th Revell Germany kit which is
copyrighted in the 80's.
If there is a statute of limitations that covers this, then they shouldn't
be able to touch the second hand market.
Just my thoughts from a very limited understanding.
Chris
"Mark Schynert" <mas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mass22-EB6033....@news04.west.earthlink.net...
Mark Schynert
fta...@yahooo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
Yes, a trademark can be considered vitiated if it is not defended
vigorously. There is also an issue whether one can make a trademark
claim after waiting many years, although corporations might not be held
to a standard of knowing what every garage resin producer is doing.
Aurora certainly wasn't in the same category, though. It would be pretty
fun to depose a few management types at Sikorsky and find out what they
built as kids--betcha they knew all about a lot of these older kits.
> Two. There is the issue of the vehicles being government contracted. As
> noted earlier military aircraft/vehicles/etc can't be copyrighted. By
> definition they are in the public domain.
I don't know anything about military or government contracting, so I
have no idea what the controlling law is.
> Three. OK they want to protect the name. But how? If I say "this is a model
> of a military helicopter with the military designation CH-53 origianlly
> maufactured by Igor Sikorsky's company" how could they stop me? It is
> nothing more than a statement of fact. And isn't the real object supposedly
> the original maker/seller? Academy, Revell, Hasegawa, Tamiya, Airfix,
> Italeri, etc all make models of Sikorsky aircraft. They were bought in good
> faith by modellers who found them in readily available venues that had
> operated for over 40 years. Truly if Sikorsky has a beef it's with the
> makers. But for the claim to be valid they would have to pursue all of
> them. But individual sellers froma personal stash? If they want to suppress
> them, perhaps they should be prepared to buy up all existing stocks of
> Sikorsky models.
I think there's a legitimate beef if you show a picture of the box that
says 'Sikorsky' or if you identify the kit specifically as described on
the box and it includes the name Sikorsky. As you move away from that,
the right to claim infringement of the trade name becomes thinner and
thinner. It's unclear how far removed such a description would have to
be to completely eliminate their rights. BTW, simple number-letter
combos like 'S-64' are notoriously difficult to enforce as trademarks,
because they've been used so often in so many contexts. For example, the
S64 was a German S-boat built about 1940, and there was also a USN
submarine SS-64. With a little searching, you can find lots of
coincident uses.
> Given the lack of standing perhaps we could hit them with restraint of
> trade.
>
> Frank
I think that would be viable, but it requires filing a class action,
because there's no way individual EBay model sellers could afford to
litigate this on their own--the loss of one party is too small to
interest an attorney,but the losses acreted by a few thousand is no
longer trivial.
Mark Schynert
Rob van Riel
> Eyeball2002308 wrote:
> >
> > >using white text on a white background. You can't see it, but
> > >the search engine can.
> > >
> > >Not that I'm suggesting you people monkey wrench these greedy corporate
> > >scumbags this way...
> >
> > if you can find it in a search,so can they...
> What you do is bury everything Sikorsky you can in white text on a white
> background on *every* auction.......LOL
>
display? They'd have a hard time making a case against someone for
_not_ displaying their trademaked name..
Rob
Chek
everything that isn't nailed down.
Their commercial 'rights' cover actual heavy metal flying machines, not '
artistic representations' of them. A sane unbiased unbought judge can take
that concept to its logical conclusion.
If they get away with it, soon they'll be billing you for breathing, once
they refine the mechanism to do so. Isn't that a line from Tom Paine?
Hey - the revolution won't be televised, but it might be on the internet!
Chek
--
Change' toot' to 'tot' in address to email directly
"Bill Banaszak" <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3FC06409...@verizon.net...
> jerry 47 wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> > I got a msg from eBay telling me an auction for a 1/100 Tamiya Sky Crane
was
> > cancelled because of a veRo program. As I understand it, veRo is their
> > copyright infringement program. Did Sikorsky make the Sky Crane? Is
this
> > why this item was pulled?
> > Jerry 47
>
> I thought maybe their search bot was tuned to Revell but apparently they
> home on 'Skycrane' too. I even went into my auction and deleted the
> Sikorsky reference. I should have tried deleting the name and gone with
> CH-64. I just wasn't sure how many would know what that was. SOBs!
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
Rob Gronovius
That the actual model kit's likeness is a non-licensed infringement on their
copyrighted design. No matter how old the kit is, or if it was carved from wood
by Grandpa while he was a crew chief of an Skycrane (or as the non-licensed
name would be, Tarhe?).
Rob Gronovius
Visit my motor pool in the www.armorama.com gallery
Bill Banaszak
Assuming you mean the kit, Revell. So far THEY haven't requested I stop
bandying their name about. ;)
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak
>
> >What is theirs & eBay's point??
>
> That the actual model kit's likeness is a non-licensed infringement on their
> copyrighted design. No matter how old the kit is, or if it was carved from wood
> by Grandpa while he was a crew chief of an Skycrane (or as the non-licensed
> name would be, Tarhe?).
Now there's a name I completely forgot. Anyone have an idea who or what
that is/was? Most Army 'copters seem to be named for Indian tribes but
I don't think I ever heard of that one.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
famv...@webtv.net
Gray Ghost
How much is a share of Sikorsky stock? If someone here knows about stocks
maybe we could pool some doguh, buy a few shares and send a proxy to a
shareholders meeting. Make the CEO answer to why they are harassing people
over "toys" when the more serious case of bogus parts still exists.
Frank
Mark Schynert
"Chek" <che...@tootalise.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems to me as an outsider that Corporate America is on a quest to own
> everything that isn't nailed down.
> Their commercial 'rights' cover actual heavy metal flying machines, not '
> artistic representations' of them. A sane unbiased unbought judge can take
> that concept to its logical conclusion.
> If they get away with it, soon they'll be billing you for breathing, once
> they refine the mechanism to do so. Isn't that a line from Tom Paine?
And what's wrong with that? Damn it, I think we should allow everything
to go over to private enterprise--air will become much cheaper, and the
supply will increase without these artificial ownership constraints.
> Hey - the revolution won't be televised, but it might be on the internet!
> Chek
>
Nope--Pay Per View
Nexrt week--how to corner the market on souls.
Mark Schynert
Chek
Interesting. Can you let me have an outline on the souls proposal thing in
time for Wednesday's meeting?
Chek
--
Change' toot' to 'tot' in address to email directly
"Mark Schynert" <mas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mass22-584ECA....@news01.west.earthlink.net...
Tom Hiett
> It seems to me as an outsider that Corporate America is on a quest to own
> everything that isn't nailed down.
> Their commercial 'rights' cover actual heavy metal flying machines, not '
> artistic representations' of them. A sane unbiased unbought judge can take
> that concept to its logical conclusion.
Been done several times but their conclusion was not the same as yours.
Tom
Erik Wauters
Erik Wauters, Belgium
"Bill Banaszak" <vze3...@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:3FC2D0A0...@verizon.net...
John Hairell
>Well, Tarhe is an Indian tribe.
Tarhe was a person in this case. He was a Wyandot chief sometimes
known as "The Crane".
John Hairell (guar...@erols.com)
Chek
forbidden to say S*K*R*K* any longer, then we as modellers will need to
employ a form of 'pet name' to circumvent this.
The service designations are public property and will not be a problem.
How about 'Pile of Junk'?
Personally I think a model displays showing tables full of 'Pile of Junk
S61', 'Pile of Junk S-55' etc. should keep everyone happy and - I'm sure the
lawyers will agree - legitimate.
As an aside, I noticed a flyer from Academy recently that did not mention
the original manufacturer's names at all, using just the service
designations.
Chek
--
Change' toot' to 'tot' in address to email directly
The Old Timer
>the original manufacturer's names at all, using just the service
>designations.
You mean the version illegally named after the 1940 - 50s comic book character?
I saw it as well.
-- John ___
__[xxx]__
(o - )
--------o00o--(_)--o00o-------
The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry
Kissinger
WmB
> > I don't know what the rest of you are going to do, but first chance I get I'm going to
buy
> > every $%^& unlicensed Sikorsky model product I can get my hands on just to shit
Suck-orsky
> > out of a dollar.
> >
> > Good thing few people where hamburgs anymore or they'd be suing them off their heads.
> >
> > WmB
> >
> > To reply, get the HECK out of there
> > HELLi...@earthlink.net
>
> Wanna buy a Skycrane kit? :)
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
And deprive you of the challenge of seeing how you're going to slip that kit by the eBay
police.
Heh... heh.... heh...
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there
HELLi...@earthlink.net
Rob Grinberg
they now own the copyright and drawings etc for the S******e; hang on tight
folks, this could get wild!
RobG
(the Aussie one)
Bill Banaszak <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3FC2D155...@verizon.net...
famv...@webtv.net
"Blackhawk", the tribe. One's the S-67 gunship propoal & the other is,
of course, the UH-60.
Bill Banaszak
Or lately, Falling Debris. :(
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak
that I bought 25 years ago that was on the market for about 10 years
before that should qualify. Then I know of S55 kits going back to
1954-5 at least.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Bill Banaszak
>
> If the problem seems to be using the manufacturer's name and we are to be
> forbidden to say S*K*R*K* any longer, then we as modellers will need to
> employ a form of 'pet name' to circumvent this.
> The service designations are public property and will not be a problem.
> How about 'Pile of Junk'?
> Personally I think a model displays showing tables full of 'Pile of Junk
> S61', 'Pile of Junk S-55' etc. should keep everyone happy and - I'm sure the
> lawyers will agree - legitimate.
> As an aside, I noticed a flyer from Academy recently that did not mention
> the original manufacturer's names at all, using just the service
> designations.
Probably the smart thing to do but it's going to cause trouble
eventually. We have done this "Same Name-Different Object" several
times and I recall once answering a question here about 1/24 Mustangs
thinking Ford when it was North American.
How about "Unohoo" for this formerly great supplier of military
equipment?
Bill Banaszak, MFE
masterpiecemodels llc
thusly owned by the united states and by the public. It is public
domain.You cannot do if figure of jimmy stewart but you can
do one of him if he is in usaaf uniform because he is public domain.
obviously the economy is bad when manufacturers are going after the
little guy trying to make a buck. I think I should do a kit of a sikorsky just
to piss them off
any suggestions please email me directly. What do you think of a 1/48th sky
crane
Please visit my website at http://www.masterpiecemodels.com
regards
John Geigle
famv...@webtv.net
individuals selling models on eBay. The models were made by model
companies years ago. All the individuals are doing is selling something
they had. Like the used car issue already mentioned. Has Sikorsky gone
into hobby shops & dept. stores & forced them to remove Sikorsky named
products from their shelves? Again, I ask, just what is their agenda? I
was thinking, has someone posted an auction for something non-existant,
with the name "Sikorsky" in it, tho clearly unrelated to the helo
Sikorskys? ie, a book, "My Days on the River", by John Sikorsky. I'd
like to see the cancel that one!
William H. Shuey
>
> How can sikorsky do this if the model is of a military aircraft
> thusly owned by the united states and by the public. It is public
> domain.
Well, now, I'll tell you! In the old days this would be true, but things
legally are changing these days, getting quite murky. Some companies are
not selling stuff to ol Uncle Sam, they are just "leasing' it. That
means they retain all other legal rights to their creation.
There is also some kind of change going on in D.o.D. purchasing where
the companies retain certain "Intellectual Property" rights while they
are selling Uncle the hardware. Only place where the Government gets the
whole kaboodle is where Uncle totally funds the R. & D., tooling and
production material.
Bill Shuey
Chris
"jerry 47" <gaho...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:vs06kn9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hey all,
> I got a msg from eBay telling me an auction for a 1/100 Tamiya Sky Crane
was
> cancelled because of a veRo program. As I understand it, veRo is their
> copyright infringement program. Did Sikorsky make the Sky Crane? Is this
> why this item was pulled?
I can see it all now. Afew months pass, and Sikorsky announces the release
of a line of "Special Edition - Previously Unavailable" kits, of course at a
special, higher-than-normal price range.
Bill Banaszak
I hope they choke on them. ;)
Bill Banaszak, MFE
rgol...@bellsouth.net
owns the kits can sell them ?
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Rob Gronovius" <rgron...@aol.com.net.com> wrote in message
news:20031123083247...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Is their an eBay rule about what a seller can put in description ?
>
> Right now Sikorsky is tracking down all likenesses of their helicopters on
> Ebay. Wouldn't matter if you put a name or numeric designation with it.
Captain Haddock
quick search of Ebay.co.uk and found several kits with Sikorsky in the
title. Perhaps the appropriate legislation is different in the UK :)
I don't really know anything about the legal position here. However,
couldn't a prospective seller of a kit of a Sikorsky item simply put a
Sikorsky copyright or TM notice in his description of the item he's
selling? (Hmm, maybe not if it's a question of the original kit
manufacturer not having the appropriate licence...)
I'd suggest emailing Sikorsky direct and telling them exactly what we
think of their actions :0 There's a nice contact list at
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1059,00.html
Cheers,
Dave
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:47:11 GMT, Bill Banaszak <vze3...@verizon.net>
wrote: