DeoxIT brand cleaner by CAIG Laboratories
ly...@dsmwlaw.com
As litigation counsel to CAIG Laboratories, Inc., we have been
authorized to prepare and disseminate this message to this newsgroup.
Recent newsgroup discussions have focused on certain CAIG products.
Specifically, there have been postings concerning CAIG's DeoxIT brand
cleaner (www.caig.com). As many of you have noted, DeoxIT brand
cleaner is highly effective at cleaning, enhancing, protecting and
rejuvenating electrical connections.
The recent discussions of DeoxIT brand cleaner have involved ways to
reproduce DeoxIT or ways to simulate DeoxIT using available materials.
In the context of one person's postings, it was necessary for CAIG to
request that the individual cease and desist. That matter is being
resolved without the necessity of litigation and with no monetary
component.
CAIG appreciates that enthusiasts at rec.antiques.radio+phono approve
of the efficacy of DeoxIT to the point that they are willing to attempt
its reproduction. However, CAIG must remain watchful to assure that
consumers do not become confused about the source or quality of its
products such as DeoxIT brand cleaner due to false statements of fact,
or improper use of its trademark.
CAIG wants the participants in rec.antiques.radio+phono to understand
its position, so it can avoid any conflicts with persons discussing its
products, or with those simply seeking to innovate.
CAIG has never published the ingredients for its products sold under
the trademarks DeoxIT, ProGold, PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. The
formulas for these products are closely guarded trade secrets known
only to a select few, much like the formula for a soft drink would be.
CAIG has applied for a federal trademark registration in the mark
DeoxIT, and has for a long time owned a common law trademark in DeoxIT.
To protect its trademark rights, CAIG must make sure that people do
not use the mark in a way that precludes the ability of DeoxIT to serve
as an indicator of source or quality to consumers. To this end, CAIG
must pursue persons who say or suggest that they are selling DeoxIT
cleaner, when they are not. Likewise, CAIG must pursue persons who
make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
are false. In legal terms, a "false designation of origin"
"false or misleading description of fact," or "false or
misleading representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. §1125 [http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php]) as
well as many state trademark, unfair competition and false advertising
laws.
However, except for safety concerns with mixing chemicals, CAIG does
not object in principle to people attempting to manufacture products to
rival DeoxIT brand cleaner, or its other products ProGold, PreservIT
and CaiLube MCL. And CAIG does not object to persons freely discussing
what works in terms of cleaners. Likewise, CAIG does not seek to limit
speech or innovation.
As long as others do not pass off their products as DeoxIT, do not make
false or misleading statements when comparing their products to DeoxIT,
or use CAIG's trademark DeoxIT improperly to capture interest and
drive sales of others' products, there is no problem.
For those interested in reading further concerning advertising, the
United States Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov, publishes some
handy guides. One such guide, written in plain English, is found at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.html.
CAIG thanks you all for the opportunity to provide quality products
relevant to the interests of those participating in the
rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Lytle, Esq.
DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
A Law Corporation
401 West A Street, Suite 2400
San Diego, CA 92101
Rick Yerke
In article <1114473589.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>(15 U.S.C. =A71125 [http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php]) as
Rick Yerke
101 William St ye...@adelphia.net
PO Box 392
Moscow Pa. 18444
USA
Peter Wieck
You have a product that some see as "safe and effective". Fine. Some
have also determined that there is a "formula" that appears to perform
the same approximate function at a fraction of the price. Fine. This
formula utilizes OTC materials that carry no restrictions for sale or
use. This, as it happens is NOT true of both the major Cola products,
to which you refer in your patter. However, this clearly threatens
your primacy as a provider of such products.
If your product were even nearly as special as you suggest, you would
not be nearly so protective of its contents.
Speaking for my own _personal_ experience, as it applies to Cramolin
products, the formula of their "Contact Clean" product is specifically
known to me as it is sold OTC in Saudi Arabia, and local laws require
that its contents be specified. That formula as called out on stick-on
labels put on German-made cans is 5% Oleic Acid, 95% hydrocarbons and
propellants. Nothing special there. Of course, Cramolin products in
Saudi are sold at US$2.70 for 200ml, cheap at the price, and a
fraction of their cost here.... No wonder you are so defensive.
And given your very ugly history with Cramolin, and the ethics this
history displays... your overall credibility is at best compromised.
My suggestion would be to get a life and go with the flow. This group
is an organization dedicated to the care and feeding of vintage
equipment. We share experience and knowledge at several levels... and
your intrusion is unwelcome and inappropriate not to mention how ill it
speaks of the organization that employs you... Assuming this is not
some jackass troll and that you are as you say you are. Either way, the
descriptive applies.
Or, something that comes incredibly hard for a lawyer: say what you
mean with the fewest words possible... and mean what you say.
Otherwise, I suggest you read Shakespeare, with specific reference to
Henry IV, and take it to heart.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
twomuttheads
product. However, I don't recall seeing any posts where someone claimed
to do a chemical analysis to isolate and identify the various
components of the cleaning aids. There were a number of SWAGs as to
content and resulting homebrew knockoffs (I wouldn't use knockoffs, who
knows for sure what damage they might cause), but any homebrew
certainly falls in the category "let the buyer beware"...that reminds
me, my can of Deoxit D5 is almost empty...maybe they'll send me a new
one.
Ish
>Dear Participants in the rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup:
>
Snip a bunch of legalise......
>Sincerely,
>
>Douglas W. Lytle, Esq.
>DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
>A Law Corporation
>401 West A Street, Suite 2400
>San Diego, CA 92101
So your point is.........................?
Mike
(Ish)
Bill
> ..that reminds
> me, my can of Deoxit D5 is almost empty...maybe they'll send me a new
> one.
>
You would be very disappointed. Every new can gets worse. I wonder
what their refund policy is?
-Bill
Doug Criner
<ly...@dsmwlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1114473589.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shawn K
that other products are compared to. If someone finds another brand of
product, or someone comes up with their own concoction, and says that it
performs "X% better or worse than Deoxit", and states this only to help
other restorers with their projects, I don't really see where the
problem is. It isn't making a false statement about deoxit or its
effectiveness, just comparing a known product to an unknown product.
Personally, I use deoxit products, and they do work well, and when
something works well for me, I don't go looking for another product. But
if the company I buy a product from (supplier or manufacturer) starts to
annoy me with all kinds of legal jargon, I would definately give another
product a second chance.
Shawn K
www.thisoldradio.com
PS: Does anyone know if someone did try to make "Deoxit"?
Doug Criner
if Peter's post is correct, namely that it's just 5% Oleic Acid with a high
price tag.
I would also suggest that any potential clients avoid a law firm with such a
pucker-ass name as "DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE."
Jon
Jon
<ly...@dsmwlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1114473589.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bill
>
> I would also suggest that any potential clients avoid a law firm with such a
> pucker-ass name as "DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE."
>
>
MAD Magazine may have an "expropriated intellectual property" claim here.
-exray
Phil Nelson
I supported my family as a writer and in publishing for many years. This is
a very routine sort of warning that lawyers will send out to protect a
intellectual property rights.
If you are the owner of a copyright, trade secret, patent, or trademark, you
need to take reasonable steps to protect those rights against willy-nilly
infringement, otherwise you risk losing them to the public domain.
As I read the lawyer's email, he's basically saying, "brew up home-made
cleaner if you like, just don't sell it under the DeoxIT name, lie about
your competing product vs. ours, or abuse the DeoxIT name for profit:"
>As long as others do not pass off their products as DeoxIT,
> do not make false or misleading statements when comparing
> their products to DeoxIT, or use CAIG's trademark DeoxIT
> improperly to capture interest and drive sales of others' products,
> there is no problem.
Which seems reasonable to me. I can reverse-engineer Betty Crocker's cake
mix recipe and feed my kids all the cake they can eat, as long as I don't
mess with Betty's livelihood.
No problemo. I had no plans to get into the cake-mix business, anyway :-)
Didn't AMD establish its right to reverse-engineer Intel's processor
technology? That is, the right to build a chip that performs the same
functions but was independently engineered and is not sold under the Intel
name?
So, mix up all the independently-engineered cramolin or oleic acid or
whatever cleaner you like. As long as you don't mess with CAIG's business, I
can't imagine why they would mess with you.
Regards,
Phil Nelson
Buck Frobisher
through Google, purporting to be a lawyer for Caig. Either a clever joke,
or Caig makes too much money, and we really DO have Big Brother watching us.
Assuming it's true, our discussion on this NG warrants the attention of
Caig's legal representative? Sad...
Watch out fellas, I feel frosty breath on your First Amendment rights!
--
"Stay calm. Be brave. Wait for the signs."
regards,
Frank Johansen
Aurora, Ontario
robert casey
> Dear Participants in the rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup:
>
> As litigation counsel to CAIG Laboratories, Inc., we have been
> authorized to prepare and disseminate this message to this newsgroup.
Looks like our SWAG of the secret formula was pretty close if
not dead on..... ;-)
Anyway, it can't be effective if it doesn't cause cancer.....
Michael Black
"Phil Nelson" (philn...@nospam.xyz) writes:
> Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist . . .
>
> I supported my family as a writer and in publishing for many years. This is
> a very routine sort of warning that lawyers will send out to protect a
> intellectual property rights.
>
> If you are the owner of a copyright, trade secret, patent, or trademark, you
> need to take reasonable steps to protect those rights against willy-nilly
> infringement, otherwise you risk losing them to the public domain.
>
> As I read the lawyer's email, he's basically saying, "brew up home-made
> cleaner if you like, just don't sell it under the DeoxIT name, lie about
> your competing product vs. ours, or abuse the DeoxIT name for profit:"
>
was talking about his product, and if I remember was careless about
how he referred to it. I seem to recall someone pointing out that
the description on Bill's website changed after that visit.
Michael
Michael Black
"Buck Frobisher" (farsi...@hotmail.com) writes:
> Interesting, a post that I take as a veiled threat from a guy posting
> through Google, purporting to be a lawyer for Caig. Either a clever joke,
> or Caig makes too much money, and we really DO have Big Brother watching us.
>
> Assuming it's true, our discussion on this NG warrants the attention of
> Caig's legal representative? Sad...
>
> Watch out fellas, I feel frosty breath on your First Amendment rights!
>
I once mentioned Don Lancaster's name in a thread, and he suddenly
appeared in that newsgroup when he'd never been there before. It
seemed clear to me that he just routinely did searches on his name,
and so could zero in. (He didn't post because I mentioned his
name, he dealt with the question in the original post, but I
am certain he'd found the thread because I mentioned his name.)
The dumpster diving newsgroup claims that companies routinely
do searches, so they use that as an excuse to garble company
names when they find things.
For years I've regularly done newsgroup searches on some things
that interest me, finding when it's being discussed rather than
trying to figure out where it might be discussed, so it does
make sense, especially for a smaller company that might suffer
from bootlegs.
As for using google to post, the easiest way of searching
the newsgroups is google. And once you find a pertinent
message it's far easier to use google to post the reply
rather than sort through messages at a newsserver. For
that matter, ISPs are dropping newsgroups, and likely it's
something blocked at many a business, so google may be
the only way to do it. If the guy really is the lawyer
for the company, undoubtedly he is doing websearches
too, but here he can reply in public.
Michael
Scott W. Harvey
>Dear Participants in the rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup:
>
>As litigation counsel to CAIG Laboratories, Inc., we have been
>authorized to prepare and disseminate this message to this newsgroup.
>Recent newsgroup discussions have focused on certain CAIG products.
>Specifically, there have been postings concerning CAIG's DeoxIT brand
>cleaner (www.caig.com). As many of you have noted, DeoxIT brand
>cleaner is highly effective at cleaning, enhancing, protecting and
>rejuvenating electrical connections.
Effective, but not as good as it used to be.......IMHO.
>
>The recent discussions of DeoxIT brand cleaner have involved ways to
>reproduce DeoxIT or ways to simulate DeoxIT using available materials.
>In the context of one person's postings, it was necessary for CAIG to
>request that the individual cease and desist. That matter is being
>resolved without the necessity of litigation and with no monetary
>component.
Good for you......It would be a shame for CAIG to spend thousands
litigating a frivolous lawsuit. There's enough of those here already
in the Golden State.
>
>CAIG appreciates that enthusiasts at rec.antiques.radio+phono approve
>of the efficacy of DeoxIT to the point that they are willing to attempt
>its reproduction. However, CAIG must remain watchful to assure that
>consumers do not become confused about the source or quality of its
>products such as DeoxIT brand cleaner due to false statements of fact,
>or improper use of its trademark.
The participants of this newsgroup must remain watchful of any
attempted usurpation of our first amendment rights as guaranteed under
the provisions of the constitution of the United States of America by
attorneys who are confused about the intent and purpose of this
newsgroup.
>CAIG wants the participants in rec.antiques.radio+phono to understand
>its position, so it can avoid any conflicts with persons discussing its
>products, or with those simply seeking to innovate.
Under US law, we are permitted to "discuss" anything we want here, as
long as it is not libelous, obscene or reveals trade secrets or secret
issues of national security.
>
>CAIG has never published the ingredients for its products sold under
>the trademarks DeoxIT, ProGold, PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. The
>formulas for these products are closely guarded trade secrets known
>only to a select few, much like the formula for a soft drink would be.
So, there ya go.....You have all but admitted that no one here knows
for sure what is in your client's products. Therefore, NO trade
secrets are being revealed here!
Sorry, but merely speculating about what is contained in the products
is NOT grounds for a successful lawsuit. See the first amendment for
more details.
>CAIG has applied for a federal trademark registration in the mark
>DeoxIT, and has for a long time owned a common law trademark in DeoxIT.
> To protect its trademark rights, CAIG must make sure that people do
>not use the mark in a way that precludes the ability of DeoxIT to serve
>as an indicator of source or quality to consumers. To this end, CAIG
>must pursue persons who say or suggest that they are selling DeoxIT
>cleaner, when they are not.
No one's selling anything here, dude.....we're just talking about it.
Would you prefer we said NOTHING AT ALL to ANYONE about Caig's
products instead?
>Likewise, CAIG must pursue persons who
>make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
>are false. In legal terms, a "false designation of origin"
>"false or misleading description of fact," or "false or
>misleading representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
>(15 U.S.C. §1125 [http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php]) as
>well as many state trademark, unfair competition and false advertising
>laws.
A false factual statement? Talk about a non sequitur!
BTW, how do we (or you, for that matter) know for sure that the
statements being made here about the compositions of Caig's products
are false? How do you propose to prove they are false when the
compositions are, as you say, "closely guarded secrets" that are
"never published"? Are we supposed to just take the word of a bunch of
lawyers as gospel?
(BTW, learn how to link to the proper section of the US Code you cite.
I was able to do it, and it's here:
>
>However, except for safety concerns with mixing chemicals, CAIG does
>not object in principle to people attempting to manufacture products to
>rival DeoxIT brand cleaner, or its other products ProGold, PreservIT
>and CaiLube MCL. And CAIG does not object to persons freely discussing
>what works in terms of cleaners. Likewise, CAIG does not seek to limit
>speech or innovation.
Then why the f*ck are you posting this sh*t here?
>
>As long as others do not pass off their products as DeoxIT, do not make
>false or misleading statements when comparing their products to DeoxIT,
>or use CAIG's trademark DeoxIT improperly to capture interest and
>drive sales of others' products, there is no problem.
>
Well, then there is no problem......No one has done that here.
>For those interested in reading further concerning advertising, the
>United States Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov, publishes some
>handy guides. One such guide, written in plain English, is found at
>www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.html.
>
>CAIG thanks you all for the opportunity to provide quality products
>relevant to the interests of those participating in the
>rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup.
>
You tried to bitch-SLAPP us with your legal doublespeak and failed.
You can go away now.....goodbye.
-Scott
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)
Jeffrey D Angus
>
> If you are the owner of a copyright, trade secret, patent, or trademark, you
> need to take reasonable steps to protect those rights against willy-nilly
> infringement, otherwise you risk losing them to the public domain.
>
> As I read the lawyer's email, he's basically saying, "brew up home-made
> cleaner if you like, just don't sell it under the DeoxIT name, lie about
> your competing product vs. ours, or abuse the DeoxIT name for profit:"
>
I'm glad to see at least ONE of our readers is literate enough
to understand what was posted.
And Michael Black wrote:
> Which was the point of his first visit, was it last year? Bill
> was talking about his product, and if I remember was careless about
> how he referred to it. I seem to recall someone pointing out that
> the description on Bill's website changed after that visit.
>
> Michael
Yes and yes. This happened while I was out in Lubbock Texas last
year getting married. (Mid June to mid July 2004)
Bill Turner was selling oleic acid with instructions to mix
with naphtha and claiming that "It is identical to DeOxit."
It was that comparison in this news group and on his web page
that got the Caig lawyers involved.
And yes, despite all the noise Bill Turner made about how he
was right and Caig was wrong, the wording on the web page was
changed to reflect the request of Caig Laboratories.
Lastly, Douglas W. Lytle wrote:
> In legal terms, a "false designation of origin" "false or
> misleading description of fact," or "false or misleading
> representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
Certain members of this news group may wish to grab this ball
and run in the wrong direction with it. However, before you do,
I suggest you consider that the Lanham Act is VERY REAL and has
VERY SHARP teeth attached to it.
This is not a typical online news group flame war with the usual
chest beating and "fu** you" followed by "fu** you back". This is
a very specific and detailed request by a law firm funded by a
major corporation.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"
Phil Nelson
I guess I missed that exchange, but -- duh! -- if you want to attract the
attention of an established company whose product you are copying (whether
or not their recipe is original or interesting), the ideal strategy would be
to create a web page or post a lot of messages on USENET setting yourself in
competition against their brand name using their formula.
Name it "Jimmy's Reely Reely Good 5% Oleic Acid Electronic Cleaner," or
whatever you like, and let the market choose the winner. If you can
manufacture and advertise and ship it for 1/10 the price of the competition,
you're home free. Just use half a brain and leave their company name out of
it.
:-)
Regards,
Phil Nelson
Michael A. Terrell
Did you consider that they have their own domain name and may not
have a Usnet server available to them?
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Bill
>
> Certain members of this news group may wish to grab this ball
> and run in the wrong direction with it. However, before you do,
> I suggest you consider that the Lanham Act is VERY REAL and has
> VERY SHARP teeth attached to it.
>
> This is not a typical online news group flame war with the usual
> chest beating and "fu** you" followed by "fu** you back". This is
> a very specific and detailed request by a law firm funded by a
> major corporation.
>
> Jeff
Hey Jeff...
Hmmm, I wonder if the same person here who reported Bill's "product"
last year is the same one who reported again this time after the oleic
acid question came up again?
What I see is a bit of shrapnel coming from years of personal grudge and
behind-the-scenes backstabbing that has made this unwitting "law firm" a
silly pawn in a personal vendetta - at Caig's expense.
In this most recent thread nobody was saying they were divulging Caig's
Big Secret or attempting to sell a product using Caig's name or anything
like that - so the chest-beating and territorial spraying coming
from...Douglas W. Lytle, Esq. DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE... is
totally unwarranted and unjustified on this occasion.
That is unless the "reporter" is playing them as part of the continued
vendetta to make Bill Turner and/or his goods look bad. Turner removed
the reference to Caig last year and nothing more has been said about it
so I don't know why someone would feel the need to go finking again to
Caig or why Douglas W. Lytle, Esq. DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
would just come up out of the blue to troll the newsgroup.
I'm glad we don't have law firms showing up here representing every
friggin product we decide to discuss. One is way too many.
-exray
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> I don't recall seeing any posts where someone claimed
> to do a chemical analysis to isolate and identify the various
> components of the cleaning aids.
Someone here posted that they were selling something - that when mixed
with a quart of naphtha "you have a quart of Deoxit".
Caig was "informed" by another poster to this group - and as has been
pointed out by another poster - once aware of the "claim" -- trademark
laws require a defense - or the owner risks loosing their "mark".
It was noted that the poster's web site was quickly changed (I never saw
the web site- so this is purely hear-say); which was noted by other
posters here. However - there was a post here that claimed to have come
from Caig or a representative of Caig - noting their exception to some
of the speculation (not that they minded the speculation - they just
wanted it on the record that it was *JUST* speculation, not proven as
factual.
So I assumed that this latest post was just a "re-statement" of Caig's
position, this time (as Peter noted) in lawyerspeak -- that you can make
whatever you like - you can use whatever you like - you just can't sell
something and say "you have DeoxIT" unless you're willing to prove it -
and then withstand possible copyright and patent infringement litigation
in the process. (If indeed it is truly identical - then it likely
infringes).
The "bulk" of these posts - Caig's initial response, etc. took place
around January through July of 2004 --- and can be found on Google by
searching Google Groups for Oleic DeoxIT Turner Syl Caig.
best regards...
--
randy guttery
A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com
Scott W. Harvey
<philn...@nospam.xyz> wrote:
>Didn't AMD establish its right to reverse-engineer Intel's processor
>technology? That is, the right to build a chip that performs the same
>functions but was independently engineered and is not sold under the Intel
>name?
Phil, I live near Silicon Valley, where both Intel and AMD reside.
Companies here reverse-engineer each other's products all the time.
The legal rules for producing a copycat product wthout getting sued
are pretty well established. Here they are, in a nutshell.
1. Gather two teams of engineers, neither of which has ever had any
contact or connection with the product you are trying to emulate.
2. The first engineering team gathers technical data about the product
using as much publicly available information as they can get their
hands on. This information is used by the team to write up very
detailed specifications about the product. Under NO circumstances is
any proprietary data used.
3. The completed specifications written by the team in #2 above is
then passed to the second engineering team, who then designs a product
that behaves in accordance with the specifications.
If the first engineering team has defined the specifications
completely and properly enough, and the second engineering team has
designed faithfully to the specifications, then it is possible to
manufacture a product that behaves exactly like the original yet is
completely unique and will withstand claims of patent infringement.
That's how the AMD products are done as well as many other things.
IMHO, the AMD Intel clones are actually a bit better than Intel's own
products.
Jeffrey D Angus
Bill wrote:
> Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
>>
>> This is not a typical online news group flame war
>
> Hey Jeff...
>
> Hmmm, I wonder if the same person here who reported Bill's "product"
> last year is the same one who reported again this time after the oleic
> acid question came up again?
I wouldn't know. See below.
> In this most recent thread nobody was saying they were divulging Caig's
> Big Secret or attempting to sell a product using Caig's name or anything
> like that - so the chest-beating and territorial spraying coming
> from...Douglas W. Lytle, Esq. DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE... is
> totally unwarranted and unjustified on this occasion.
I was referring to our OWN news group members posting comments to the
effect that Mr. Lytle et. al. could go take a flying leap etc..
Most of which appear to be based on a complete and total
misunderstanding of what Mr. Lytle posted here.
> That is unless the "reporter" is playing them as part of the continued
> vendetta to make Bill Turner and/or his goods look bad. Turner removed
> the reference to Caig last year and nothing more has been said about it
> so I don't know why someone would feel the need to go finking again to
> Caig or why Douglas W. Lytle, Esq. DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
> would just come up out of the blue to troll the newsgroup.
As mentioned elsewhere, Caig probably researches this news group,
and others, with the sole intent of protecting their name. This
thread started 5 days ago under the subject of "DeOxit & oleic acid"
It wouldn't be too difficult for that alone to raise a flag at Caig
if they periodically use Google to search for their product names.
Both Google for web site references, and Google Groups for Usenet News
Groups.
> I'm glad we don't have law firms showing up here representing every
> friggin product we decide to discuss. One is way too many.
Well, for what it's worth, I don't remember ANY postings here along
the line of "How to make X product yourself" for something that is
currently in production other than the Caig DeOxit product.
There's a real difference between mentioning a product, and claiming
to sell an identical product.
Bill
>
> There's a real difference between mentioning a product, and claiming
> to sell an identical product.
>
> Jeff
>
I don't recall anyone selling, or claiming to sell, an identical product
in this thread. The OP said "Unable to buy Caig DeOxit locally and
unwilling to pay s&h equal to the price, I decided to homebrew the
equivalent using some lab oleic acid."
The word "equivalent" was apparently the red flag...I guess.
-Bill
Scott W. Harvey
<jan...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Turner was selling oleic acid with instructions to mix
>with naphtha and claiming that "It is identical to DeOxit."
>It was that comparison in this news group and on his web page
>that got the Caig lawyers involved.
>
>And yes, despite all the noise Bill Turner made about how he
>was right and Caig was wrong, the wording on the web page was
>changed to reflect the request of Caig Laboratories.
I remember the verbage on Bill's web page at the time. It said
something to the effect of "Watch out, DeoxIT!" and went on to
describe the mixture. IMHO, it danced along the edge of the fence
without going over the other side. I don't remember anything on the
web site that said anything like "identical to DeoxIT".......maybe
"equivalent to DeoxIT" or "compare to DeoxIT", which is not the same
thing.
IMHO, this would be an interesting test case.....someone selling
something that when mixed with something else that is not being sold
by the same individual, is claimed to be equivalent of a commercial
product......If the mixture is equivalent, can the individual still be
held liable by selling only one component of the mixture?
>
>Lastly, Douglas W. Lytle wrote:
>
>> In legal terms, a "false designation of origin" "false or
>> misleading description of fact," or "false or misleading
>> representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
>
>Certain members of this news group may wish to grab this ball
>and run in the wrong direction with it. However, before you do,
>I suggest you consider that the Lanham Act is VERY REAL and has
>VERY SHARP teeth attached to it.
Jeff, as I read it, what these guys are requesting of us appears to go
beyond what rights the Lanham act grants them.
Being one who appreciates the free expression of ideas and opinions, I
take serious issue with a bunch of lawyers trying to use their own
interpretation of a particular section of US law to coerce limitations
on what can be discussed here.
>
>This is not a typical online news group flame war with the usual
>chest beating and "fu** you" followed by "fu** you back". This is
>a very specific and detailed request by a law firm funded by a
>major corporation.
Not specific enough, IMHO. If these folks have legitimate, specific
actionable issues with something that a particular participant posts
here, then they need to deal with that person individually, and leave
the rest of us out of it. It is neither appropriate nor good
etiquette to address the entire newsgroup in this fashion. It smacks
of intimidation, regardless of whether that was the intended purpose
or not.
-Scott
>
>Jeff
Bill Turner
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
Business SASE, each order a copy of The Pocket Resource Guide.
Larry Fowkes
they seem to be a very real and quite large firm.
Larry
Jeffrey D Angus
> HE SEEMS TO KNOW A HELL OF A LOT ABOUT THIS FOR A CASUAL OBSERVER.
What are you trying to say Bill?
Is that actually some faint praise for knowing what I'm talking
about?
David Stinson
ly...@dsmwlaw.com wrote:
> The recent discussions of DeoxIT brand cleaner have involved ways to
> reproduce DeoxIT or ways to simulate DeoxIT using available materials.
> In the context of one person's postings, it was necessary for CAIG to
> request that the individual cease and desist.
Dear Sir:
Should I or anyone else decide to reproduce the products
of your client, CAIG Laboratories, Inc., for our personal use,
or should I decide to discuss with other participants in this group
what I believe to be in DeoxIT(tm) or how I might reproduce it
for my own use (not for sale, of course),
I doubt you have legal grounds for complaint.
Perhaps one person has been a bit "forward" in claims
for a product he wishes to sell
(and I'm sure he has taken your meaning and will comply),
that hardly seems grounds to come to
a public newsgroup with tens of thousands of readers
and make legal threats.
A simple, private email would have sufficed and caused much
less ill-will against your client.
> That matter is being
> resolved without the necessity of litigation and with no monetary
> component.
Instead of all this bothersome and threatening wind,
why not ask a representative of your client come to the group and
inform us of the differences and uses in and of their many products?
That is, after all, the main point of all the discussion:
the confusion about which products are best for what applications.
Most people here are of at least average (most above average)
intelligence, and we can't make "heads of tales" of it;
the website is wordy and confusing.
They would win more customers by helping us
(literally thousands of potential users of their products)
better understand the intended uses of their products,
rather than sending lawyers to make threats.
Frankly- letters such as yours, posted in this manner-
give me incentive to find alternates to Caig products,
and my Fortune 500 company uses lots of such products.
Sincerely,
David Stinson.
cc:
Mark K. Lohkemper,
President & C.E.O.
Caig Laboratories, Inc.
Michael Black
Bill (dontspam...@coqui.net) writes:
> Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
>>
>> Certain members of this news group may wish to grab this ball
>> and run in the wrong direction with it. However, before you do,
>> I suggest you consider that the Lanham Act is VERY REAL and has
>> VERY SHARP teeth attached to it.
>>
>> This is not a typical online news group flame war with the usual
>> chest beating and "fu** you" followed by "fu** you back". This is
>> a very specific and detailed request by a law firm funded by a
>> major corporation.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Hey Jeff...
>
> Hmmm, I wonder if the same person here who reported Bill's "product"
> last year is the same one who reported again this time after the oleic
> acid question came up again?
>
> What I see is a bit of shrapnel coming from years of personal grudge and
> behind-the-scenes backstabbing that has made this unwitting "law firm" a
> silly pawn in a personal vendetta - at Caig's expense.
>
here also posted in some other newsgroups with a similar warning about
the misuse of the company's name.
As I said, it makes a lot of sense for a company to do searches to
check for this sort of thing. At the very least, it's good to know
what people are saying about you. I'm sure "in the real world" companies
use clipping services to track mention of their products, and the internet
is likely a place to check more carefully if you're concerned about
this sort of thing, given that it gives everyone the printing press. And
of course, you can do searches rather than having to look through everything
yourself, as is the case with paper.
Hence I don't think there was a tip off here.
Michael
Phil Nelson
> The legal rules for producing a copycat product wthout getting sued
> are pretty well established. Here they are, in a nutshell.
Yes, I once worked for a software company on a project that did exactly
that. You hand your "clean room" team a specification based strictly on
non-proprietary information and independent observation. Then they create
software that does what the spec describes. This is done under the
supervision of your company lawyers to ensure careful records are kept,
etc., showing at every stage how the product was created.
Phil Nelson
Phil Nelson
> check for this sort of thing.
I know from experience that company lawyers search the Internet. Several
years ago, I wrote an article about restoring an RCA TV. In the article, I
included part of the SAMS Photofact (ignorantly assuming it was in the
public domain, like many other old schematics).
Some time later, I got a polite email from a lawyer from SAMS informing me
that their company is still alive and well, and still selling Photofacts. He
said he didn't mind if I left the schematic online, as long as I attributed
the source. I deleted the schematic anyway, since it wasn't vital to the
article.
If I ran a company with a lot of easily-copied intellectual property, I'd
certainly have a junior associate Google the world once in a while, to see
where my content popped up. As I said, the owner has to be vigilant in
defending its intellectual property rights. "Aspirin" was a valuable
trademark once upon a time. Now it's a lower-case noun:
http://www.devicelink.com/mx/archive/03/03/mchugh.html
Regards,
Phil Nelson
jim menning
"Phil Nelson" <philn...@nospam.xyz>
>
> I know from experience that company lawyers search the Internet.
> Several years ago, I wrote an article about restoring an RCA TV. In
> the article, I included part of the SAMS Photofact (ignorantly
> assuming it was in the public domain, like many other old
> schematics).
>
> Some time later, I got a polite email from a lawyer from SAMS
> informing me that their company is still alive and well, and still
> selling Photofacts. He said he didn't mind if I left the schematic
> online, as long as I attributed the source. I deleted the schematic
> anyway, since it wasn't vital to the article.
>
For those wondering about copying or selling Sams items, I had reason
to contact Richard A. White, the Chief Operating Officer of Sams last
year in regards to copyright questions.
My question: "Are all old Sam's publications still protected
by your copyrights, or are some available for distribution
(public domain)?"
The answer: "My official stance is that I'd prefer others
don't sell copies of my manuals, but the reality is that
over the years, Sams (Howard W. Sams & Co.) didn't renew
some of the copyrights. Thus any manual from Sams
produced prior to 1961 is considered public domain."
So it looks like the 1946-1960 Sams are okay to share, later ones may
or may not be okay to duplicate.
jim menning
Peter Wieck
lower-case noun<<
Except in the rest of the world where it is still a trademark of Bayer.
Aspirin costs nearly $0.10 for a 325mg tablet in Saudi, and is sold in
blister-packs of 10 and multiples thereof. And generic acetyl salicytic
acid is not available. Period. My (brief) experience in England and
France was the same. Aspirin was also "owned" by Bayer.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
robert casey
>
> I don't recall anyone selling, or claiming to sell, an identical product
> in this thread. The OP said "Unable to buy Caig DeOxit locally and
> unwilling to pay s&h equal to the price, I decided to homebrew the
> equivalent using some lab oleic acid."
>
> The word "equivalent" was apparently the red flag...I guess.
>
Guess all you can say is "similar to that product sold by that
company that threatened to sue people in this newsgroup
in the past".
Wonder if this law firm is the same one the RIAA used to
sue that 12 year old kid.
Bob Weiss
>Aspirin was also "owned" by Bayer.
So was "Heroin", which they introduced at about the same time, as a
cough remedy...
73,
Bob Weiss N2IXK
hagstar
Peter Wieck wrote:
>
>
> Except in the rest of the world where it is still a trademark of Bayer.
> Aspirin costs nearly $0.10
WOW= I pay less than a penny each.
--
Please REPLY to yonny at att,net as the msn address is a spam trap !
Thanks,
John H.
On the West Coast of New England
Tim Mullen
>If I ran a company with a lot of easily-copied intellectual property, I'd
>certainly have a junior associate Google the world once in a while, to see
>where my content popped up.
Sure. This would be easy enough to automate. Computers are good
at that kind of thing.
--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Martin Crossley
It is now listed as a generic, together with maximum price,here (UK):
<http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/MedicinesPharmacyAndIndustry/Gen
ericMedicines/MaximumPriceScheme/ListOfMaximumPriceGenericMedicines/fs/e
n?CONTENT_ID=4026674&chk=Vw8wqY>
Best regards,
Martin(Stockport)
Peter Wieck
England about three years ago.
Thanks,
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
No one here has made "DeOxit", nor has anyone here done anything much
other than some speculation as to its various contents other than to
compare it to Cramolin products (Which does not seem nearly so
protective of its formula, as my experience has proven). Cramolin once
supplied the bulk materials to Caig, which in turn canned it and sold
it on this side of the pond. However, after a particularly nasty legal
battle during which much mud was slung and at least a few false
descriptives circulated as to the materials used, the EPA and other red
herrings, Caig more-or-less took over the DeOxit trademark, and
Cramolin no longer uses it.
Now, Cramolin ContacClean is the once and former Cramolin Red, or so I
was told by the Cramolin distributor (Medjat) in Saudi. This is the
formula that is 5% Oleic acid/95% volatile hydrocarbons and
propellants. Oleic acid is a fatty acid, and used in the food industry,
the metal cleaning industry and several other applications of similar
nature. It is sold OTC and without restrictions. It may be sent through
the US mails without special labeling. Naptha (a volatile hydrocarbon)
(Coleman Fuel, for example) is also available OTC but may not be sent
through the mails for obvious reasons.
Getting to your point, Bill Turner, ever looking out for hobbyists on a
budget, tested the assertion I had made as to the formula of the
_CRAMOLIN_ product. It worked. He offered the pure Oleic acid to us
with the suggestion that we add our own volatile hydrocarbons.
Is it DeOxit? Not hardly. Does it work? Well, when I mixed up some
myself in Saudi, it worked exactly as the Cramolin product did. Oh, and
that is how I discovered that 10% is an oily mess, 5% is just right,
less than 5% takes much longer, or takes more applications.
In Saudi, 20 ml of pharmaceutical-grade Oleic Acid cost as as much as a
full can of Cramolin, and then I had to supply the naptha (VM&P
Thinner). So, the convenience of the spray can came at little extra
cost. But, the experiment was illuminating. I have not tested Bill
Turner's product personally, but if it is Oleic acid (and I am sure it
is), and it is mixed at 19:1 (5%), I would endorse it based on my
PERSONAL experience with that mixture.
Caig's prices, obtuse language and defensive mumbo-jumbo leave me cold.
For the cost of four cans, I can purchase more-or-less a lifetime
supply of the homebrew, and make a good start on refillable spray-cans
as well. When I run out of the Cramolin that followed me home from
Saudi, I might do just that.
Oh, does anyone here know if Cramolin distributes in the US? Their
website is obscure on that point. I would almost like to purchase their
product on principle.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Cmd Buzz Corey
> PERSONAL experience with that mixture.
>
> Caig's prices, obtuse language and defensive mumbo-jumbo leave me cold.
> For the cost of four cans, I can purchase more-or-less a lifetime
> supply of the homebrew, and make a good start on refillable spray-cans
> as well. When I run out of the Cramolin that followed me home from
> Saudi, I might do just that.
>
> Oh, does anyone here know if Cramolin distributes in the US? Their
> website is obscure on that point. I would almost like to purchase their
> product on principle.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
>
So, lets just purchase Oleic Acid, a can of Naptha and make our own
contact cleaner, enough to last a lifetime for a fraction of the cost of
a tiny spray can of DeoxIt, and let Craig and Douglas W. Lytle, Esq. of
DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE go jump in the lake.
BH
Being "equivalent" isn't violating anything. I install OEM parts on my
cars all the time that are the "equivalent" to the original.
Scott W. Harvey
did.
-Scott
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:50:09 GMT, David Stinson <ar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Peter Wieck
the line of "How to make X product yourself" for something that is
currently in production other than the Caig DeOxit product.
There's a real difference between mentioning a product, and claiming
to sell an identical product. <<
Yikes.
Jeff:
That is not the point. Bill Turner may have made a tactical error in
bringing Caig into the mix as a direct comparison. Perhaps he should
have used more lawyerly terms and avoided the issue altogether.
However, you need to keep in mind that he was neither selling nor
manufacturing an "equivalent/same/identical/insert-your-term-here"
product. Period. What he was doing is distributing an "active
ingredient" and suggesting a method to make a product that would
function in the same manner as a _NAME BRAND_ product. That is
functionally equivalent of CVS stating that their house-brand
acetyl-salicytic acid functions the same as Bayer Aspirin. By name and
by activity. Guess what? It does. Whether the formula is identical
(binder/coating/color/label) or not, the function is the same. For the
record, how many "House Brands" say right on the box/bottle/label
"COMPARE TO: and then in the very fine print say "XYZCo is not
affiliated or part of AEICo" and so forth. Had Bill written
_EVERYTHING_ he did and then added a disclaimer, Caig would have had
nothing to go on.
We are NOT discussing intellectual property such as writings or music
or art. We are discussing a functional product with measurable
properties. Much as the AMD/Intel chip discussion. Bill asserted that
his active ingredient, when mixed as directed would perform in a
similar manner to a well-known name brand. Yeah? So what? Any problem
with that? As someone else mentioned, being the Benchmark has an
unmeasurable intrinsic value and should be seen for exactly that. Coke,
Hertz, many others have been in that position and valued it. Some have
become SO much of a benchmark that they are at risk for becoming
generic. Xerox and Kleenex are at that point almost right now. Bayer
lost that fight many years ago here in the US. So, it is a two-edged
sword.
Caig is entitled to be as protective as they see fit. This is a "free"
country after all. But before we start opining on whether one party or
another is right we should look at prevailing examples of similar
claims that happen _EVERY_ day and in plain view. OTC pharmaceuticals
are a common example, as are cleaning products, generic cereals and
many other products. However and unlike Caig, these uses are typically
required to divulge their ingredients, and in the general
order-of-proportion. But as we all know, even items using identical
ingredients can be very different.... you could make a hamburger out of
beef lips and nostrils, call it "100% pure beef just like....", and get
away with it. Would it be identical to something made from top-sirloin?
So brands with proprietory processes or quality standards will always
differentiate themselves. If they need a lawyer to do so, then it is
not *necessarily* because they are either better or special. One would
suspect the opposite.
Now, getting back to radios and the purpose of all this: We all of us
have choices. We may use a home-brew or not. Bill Turner's product or
not. Caig's product or not. Either way, no attorney needs get involved.
I have the capacity to make my own dial (plastic) covers, it ain't
nohow rocket science. I tooled up for it way back when for another
purpose than radios. But I still use BT on occasion so I can use my
hobby time on something else. I live near a big city, so getting
"stuff" including high-voltage capacitors by walking into a shop is no
problem. I still order from Mouser or Santech, or purchase through my
club.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
da...@hurtle.com
table with the oleic acid for sale?
I can see why they'd want you to change the web page but I really
didn't see the need for them to jump in this time. I was never
interested in making my own contact cleaner but all the hubub has
piqued my curiosity. I'd like to give it a try.
Larry Fowkes
You can also order the oleic acid from www.thechemistrystore.com for about
$14.00 a gallon. That would be enough to make a boatload of cleaner. I am
going to place an order with them tonight and give this stuff a try.
Larry Fowkes