Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

$14 Camera Stabilizer

Tags:
  • Tuner Cards
  • Video
  • Desktops
  • Cameras
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
make a camera stabilizer for about $15.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam

Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
Check out the footage, it looks great!

As always - practice, practice, practice.

Tom P.

More about : camera stabilizer

Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" wrote ...
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how
> to make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
> Check out the footage, it looks great!

I built one and it worked reasonably well.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:16:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>
> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>
> Tom P.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:40:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.

He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.

That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going to
sue?

Tom P.

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>
>> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>
>> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
>> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>>
>> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>>
>> Tom P.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:40:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

> "nap" wrote ...
> >I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?


"Henry Padilla"wrote ...
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.

Neither are proper. BayerAG lost "aspirin" in the US (but not
in Canadia) through lax protection of their trademark name.
I understand "Jeep" also came close.

To properly use these terms, they must be used as adjectives.
Kleenex tissue. Jeep vehicle. Steadicam camera-support.
Pentium microprocessor. Xerox photocopier. Band-Aid
brand bandages.

Once you start using them as nouns (or verbs like "I'll take
that paper and Xerox it."), you can lose your right to own
the name.

OTOH, you can also go too far. Like "Windows" or "Monster"
(and I'm sure there are more examples.)
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:57:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
gospam@yourself.com says...
> Subject: Re: $14 Camera Stabilizer
> From: "nap" <gospam@yourself.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video, rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production
>
> I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
>

Well it's steadier than it would be otherwise if oyu were holding it
after a night of drinking.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
padillah@hotmail.com says...
> Subject: Re: $14 Camera Stabilizer
> From: "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video, rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production
>
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>
> That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going to
> sue?
>
> Tom P.
>

His dog, grandmother, any teacher that contributed to his development
and the company that made the pipes and fittings :) 
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:06:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>

ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'






> That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going
> to sue?
>
> Tom P.
>
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
>> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>>
>>> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>>
>>> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
>>> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>>>
>>> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>>>
>>> Tom P.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:37:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1113423571.fae1bd1dbdc51ca4e95aa6e7df7b833e@teranews...
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>
>> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>
>>> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>
>>
>> ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>
> When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this,
> he
> will be told to stop using the term.

probably just a matter of time.


>
> --
> Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
>
> "If you take out the killings, Washington actually
> has a very low crime rate."
> - Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, D.C.

That's true.. he actually said that! Amazing eh? And he was just elected
again to city council.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.

> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam

Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.

Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:14:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" wrote ...
> I've never used a Steadicam but had a question: aren't
> genuine steadicams based on a heavy, spinning gyro to
> stabilize whatever they're attached to?

No, they depend on a finely-tuned system of springs,
levers, and easily-moving joints to counterbalance the
mass of the camera.

> I've used a pair of old Soviet binos that actually have
> a big gyro in them. Sort of the mechanical alternative
> to all the electro-stabilization we westerners are used
> to (Canon binos for example)

Old technology vs. new technology. The modern image
stabilization is quite a sophisticated system. Using
ultrasonic solid-state gyros to detect movement (in all
three axes) and and a liquid-filled adjustable prism
adjusted by very fast servos. And all packed into quite
small camcorders and even binoculars.

Developed by Canon originally for larger, commercial
lenses (like shooting from moving platforms like trucks
and aircraft). And then miniaturized and mass-produced
for consumer camcorders, etc. The other method is to
use the same movement information (from the ultrasonic
gyro crystals) and to move the sampling area of the CCD
pickup chip around to compensate. Each method has its
advantages and disadvantages. But I prefer the Canon
optical varitey myself.

> Wonder if anyone has tried to make their own gyro
> stabilized "home steadicam".

Even more challenging projects like robots that walk
like we do: using "controlled falling". You can buy
little circuit boards with both ultrasonic gyros and
accellerometers from places like www.sparkfun.com
etc.

> Still, those samples are pretty sweet - almost wonder
> if it's worth the effort to take it any further with a gyro...
> (maybe if you're taking shots from a helicopter)

Many (most?) of the helicopter devices ARE active gyro
stabilized. Interesting info at websites like...
www.spacecam.com and www.camerasystems.com and
www.tylermount.com, etc. etc.
April 14, 2005 12:55:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>
>>>He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>
>>
>>ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>
>
> When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this, he
> will be told to stop using the term.
>
Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
making any money doing it.

The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
April 14, 2005 1:01:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Kevin wrote:
> In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
>
> Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
> compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
> girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
> of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>
> Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>
It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

anyways, a simple browse of the US Patent Office online database will
bring up all of the relevant patents + pictures and so forth for those
that really want to play around with this idea at home.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:14:05 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>Old technology vs. new technology. The modern image
>stabilization is quite a sophisticated system. Using
>ultrasonic solid-state gyros to detect movement (in all
>three axes) and and a liquid-filled adjustable prism
>adjusted by very fast servos. And all packed into quite
>small camcorders and even binoculars.
>
>Developed by Canon originally for larger, commercial
>lenses (like shooting from moving platforms like trucks
>and aircraft). And then miniaturized and mass-produced
>for consumer camcorders, etc. The other method is to
>use the same movement information (from the ultrasonic
>gyro crystals) and to move the sampling area of the CCD
>pickup chip around to compensate. Each method has its
>advantages and disadvantages. But I prefer the Canon
>optical varitey myself.

Hmm, this may be a bit of a terminology pitfall. I would say that both
systems you've just described are 'Optical'. The major alternative - a
'Digital' system uses no moving parts, and simply chooses the correct
subset of pixels on the slightly larger sensor to minimize the shake.
The digital system is inferior to either of the methods you describe,
but is cheaper to make.

I guess you could call them Optical, Mechanical and Digital. Dunno....

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:11:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:01:17 -0500, RS <mail@mail.com> wrote:

>Kevin wrote:
>> In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>
>>
>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>
>>
>> Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
>> compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
>> girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
>> of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>>
>> Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>>
>It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
>that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
>one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
>go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.

...so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtus519ab2qru9ose22v8bq3u7c82r8bta@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:01:17 -0500, RS <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>> In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything
>>> professional to
>>> compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the
>>> additional
>>> girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the
>>> bottom
>>> of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>>>
>>> Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>>>
>>It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
>>that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
>>one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
>>go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.
>
> ..so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?
>

Same way the big boys do it on features, when they're using prime lenses,
which is to say you can't. Maybe that's a good thing;-)

Steve King
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:48:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Larry J. wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>>
>>>>He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>>
>>>
>>>ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>>
>>
>> When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this,
>> he will be told to stop using the term.
>>
> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because they
> realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or, making any
> money doing it.
>
> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
> with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>

I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to sell
a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have to change
the name.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:25:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:Sov7e.3364$dT4.1707@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...

--snip--

>> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because they
>> realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or, making
>> any money doing it.
>>
>> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
>> with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>
>
> I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to
> sell a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have to
> change the name.

I think the whole point of this device is for novice at-home users to get a
little functionality. I don't believe this guy is looking to make his name
in the "plumbing fixture stabilizer" market. :) 

It's not like he's a business trying to make professional people stop using
SteadyCam's and buy his stuff.

Not EVERYONE _has_ to sue EVERYBODY all the time.

Tom P.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtus519ab2qru9ose22v8bq3u7c82r8bta@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:01:17 -0500, RS <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kevin wrote:

--snip--

>>It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
>>that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
>>one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
>>go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.
>
> ..so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Wait a minute. Pan, dolly, running and ZOOM?! You trying to make me motion
sick?

I suppose the theory is: If you are standing still just use your other hand.
If you are moving you shouldn't be zooming anyway, that's too much camera
movement.

I guess.

Tom P.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:31:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nXv7e.1949$HK6.45@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:Sov7e.3364$dT4.1707@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
> --snip--
>
>>> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
>>> they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
>>> making any money doing it.
>>>
>>> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
>>> with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to
>> sell a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have
>> to change the name.
>
> I think the whole point of this device is for novice at-home users to get
> a little functionality. I don't believe this guy is looking to make his
> name in the "plumbing fixture stabilizer" market. :) 
>
> It's not like he's a business trying to make professional people stop
> using SteadyCam's and buy his stuff.
>
> Not EVERYONE _has_ to sue EVERYBODY all the time.

it was simply a casual observation. More power to him for making $35 of of
steel pipes!



>
> Tom P.
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:y1w7e.3377$dT4.2939@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nXv7e.1949$HK6.45@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
>> news:Sov7e.3364$dT4.1707@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>>
>> --snip--
>>
>>>> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
>>>> they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
>>>> making any money doing it.
>>>>
>>>> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't
>>>> associate with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to
>>> sell a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have
>>> to change the name.
>>
>> I think the whole point of this device is for novice at-home users to get
>> a little functionality. I don't believe this guy is looking to make his
>> name in the "plumbing fixture stabilizer" market. :) 
>>
>> It's not like he's a business trying to make professional people stop
>> using SteadyCam's and buy his stuff.
>>
>> Not EVERYONE _has_ to sue EVERYBODY all the time.
>
> it was simply a casual observation. More power to him for making $35 of of
> steel pipes!
>

Also, I just noticed he calls it a Steadycam -- not a SteadiCam (<-- That's
what's trademarked).

Think that might be the trick?

Tom P.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:51:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>, mail@mail.com says...
> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
> they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
> making any money doing it.
>
> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
> with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>
>

Actually, in order to prevent a name like this becoming generic, the
company is required to pursue all infringements no matter how trivial,
or the term will eventually be given up to public domain by default.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5w7e.1951$HK6.1545@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:y1w7e.3377$dT4.2939@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nXv7e.1949$HK6.45@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Sov7e.3364$dT4.1707@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>>>
>>> --snip--
>>>
>>>>> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
>>>>> they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
>>>>> making any money doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't
>>>>> associate with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to
>>>> sell a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have
>>>> to change the name.
>>>
>>> I think the whole point of this device is for novice at-home users to
>>> get a little functionality. I don't believe this guy is looking to make
>>> his name in the "plumbing fixture stabilizer" market. :) 
>>>
>>> It's not like he's a business trying to make professional people stop
>>> using SteadyCam's and buy his stuff.
>>>
>>> Not EVERYONE _has_ to sue EVERYBODY all the time.
>>
>> it was simply a casual observation. More power to him for making $35 of
>> of steel pipes!
>>
>
> Also, I just noticed he calls it a Steadycam -- not a SteadiCam (<--
> That's what's trademarked).
>
> Think that might be the trick?


no kidding.. I didn't even notice that. !


>
> Tom P.
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:09:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:2ez7e.3450$dT4.3139@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u5w7e.1951$HK6.1545@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Also, I just noticed he calls it a Steadycam -- not a SteadiCam (<--
>> That's what's trademarked).
>>
>> Think that might be the trick?
>
>
> no kidding.. I didn't even notice that. !
>
I think that is probably too close to get him off the hook
if he were in any position to sell a lot of these things.
It isn't just about him taking business away from Stedicam.
The larger issue might be that people might see this thing
and not notice that it is spelled slightly different and think
that stedicam is a total rip-off if this is the sort of thing
they are marketing. What does the cheapest Stedicam
cost? $300?? that is a lot for a few standard pipe fittings.
Actually, that is a lot for what they sell you for $300 anyway.

David
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:14:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:2ez7e.3450$dT4.3139@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u5w7e.1951$HK6.1545@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>
== SNIP ==

>>
>> Also, I just noticed he calls it a Steadycam -- not a SteadiCam (<--
>> That's what's trademarked).
>>
>> Think that might be the trick?
>
>
> no kidding.. I didn't even notice that. !
>

I remember reading on HowStuffWorks.com that BluRay spelled their name
without the 'e' because you can't trademark a common phrase. This may be
why 1) SteadiCam spelled their name that way. 2) They can't "go after"
someone that is spelling it "steadycam".

Or I'm wrong and he's going to court soon after this post. :) 
Tom P.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:40:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" wrote ...
> I remember reading on HowStuffWorks.com that BluRay
> spelled their name without the 'e' because you can't
> trademark a common phrase.

That is apparently the opinion of BluRay's legal counsel.
But just as clearly, there are those who have the opposite
opinion (i.e. Micorsoft with "Windows", the rip-off cable
people with "Monster", etc. etc. etc.) Go back and read
the last year or two of postings from "Ptravel"

> This may be why 1) SteadiCam spelled their name that way.
> 2) They can't "go after" someone that is spelling it "steadycam".

You could be sued for eating breakfast. Common sense
disappeared from the legal community over the last decade
or two.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:42:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

> ..so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?

I used the little clip-on remote control that Sony sells.
Start/Stop and variable-speed zoom in/out. Clips right
on to the stabilizer right under your thumb.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:15:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I'd point out the situation is somewhat different north of the border - we
Canucks have laughed things out of court that seem to get people money in
the US.

There's a law in Canada I'm vaguely familiar with supporting a private user
making a backup copy of media/software they own. Someone (RIAA, movie
industry) tried to challenge it as they have in the US - the judge threw it
out here. I understand it's a complete flip-flop in the US.

C.




"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:115ukuqh4k2c518@corp.supernews.com...
> "Henry Padilla" wrote ...
>> I remember reading on HowStuffWorks.com that BluRay spelled their name
>> without the 'e' because you can't trademark a common phrase.
>
> That is apparently the opinion of BluRay's legal counsel.
> But just as clearly, there are those who have the opposite
> opinion (i.e. Micorsoft with "Windows", the rip-off cable
> people with "Monster", etc. etc. etc.) Go back and read
> the last year or two of postings from "Ptravel"
>
>> This may be why 1) SteadiCam spelled their name that way. 2) They can't
>> "go after" someone that is spelling it "steadycam".
>
> You could be sued for eating breakfast. Common sense
> disappeared from the legal community over the last decade
> or two.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:15:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" wrote ...
> I'd point out the situation is somewhat different north of
> the border - we Canucks have laughed things out of court
> that seem to get people money in the US.

OTOH, you Canuks are now legislating speech. That is far more
scary than preventing people from making copies of "Survivor"
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

?? Are you referring by chance to "hate speech"?

If so, I would agree that it's a stupid idea to suppress it. Really
stupid. Let them reveal themselves. But I would also observe that it
doesn't have much real impact anywhere.

Not as much, at least, as my disappointment at knowing I might never see
little Stewy's animated naked butt again. Geez, how long before we
start burning witches again.

I can hear James Dobson right now: But there really are witches....

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "C.J.Patten" wrote ...
>
>> I'd point out the situation is somewhat different north of
>> the border - we Canucks have laughed things out of court
>> that seem to get people money in the US.
>
>
> OTOH, you Canuks are now legislating speech. That is far more
> scary than preventing people from making copies of "Survivor"
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...
> ?? Are you referring by chance to "hate speech"?

But consider that "hate speech" is whatever the legislature
of the moment proclaims it to be. Just because you happen
to agree with them today is no protection that they won't
get thrown out of office and people who don't agree with
you will re-define "hate speech" tomorrow. People on
BOTH sides of the political spectrum are endangered by
this kind of totalarianism. You aren't seeing the larger picture.
It is really true. People who don't heed history are doomed
to repeat it.
April 15, 2005 2:46:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

nap wrote:
> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
>>Larry J. wrote:
>>
>>>Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>>>
>>>>>He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>>>
>>>
>>>When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this,
>>>he will be told to stop using the term.
>>>
>>
>>Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because they
>>realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or, making any
>>money doing it.
>>
>>The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
>>with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>
>
>
> I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to sell
> a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have to change
> the name.
>
>
Are you just being picky? Or are you of the opinion that the owner of
the name "Steadycam" should indeed make a huge fuss over something is
mundane?
April 15, 2005 2:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Henry Padilla wrote:
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:Sov7e.3364$dT4.1707@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
>
> --snip--
>
>
>>>Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because they
>>>realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or, making
>>>any money doing it.
>>>
>>>The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
>>>with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think so.. You simply can not use a brand name or trademark to
>>sell a similar item. If he ever sold enough of these kits he would have to
>>change the name.
>
>
> I think the whole point of this device is for novice at-home users to get a
> little functionality. I don't believe this guy is looking to make his name
> in the "plumbing fixture stabilizer" market. :) 
>
> It's not like he's a business trying to make professional people stop using
> SteadyCam's and buy his stuff.
>
> Not EVERYONE _has_ to sue EVERYBODY all the time.
>
> Tom P.
>
>
Thank you!!!
April 15, 2005 2:52:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:01:17 -0500, RS <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
>>>compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
>>>girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
>>>of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>>>
>>>Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>>>
>>
>>It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
>>that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
>>one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
>>go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.
>
>
> ..so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Well, obviously if your running about you don't plan to do much zooming.
I suppose you have an assistant holding the wired or wireless remote
to control the zoom.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Bill Van Dyk" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:o PudnZ8E-7oFTsLfRVn-tw@golden.net...
>
> Not as much, at least, as my disappointment at knowing I might never see
> little Stewy's animated naked butt again. Geez, how long before we start
> burning witches again.
>
> I can hear James Dobson right now: But there really are witches....
>
There really are people that consider themselves witches.
All of them cast spells and such, and a few of them even
wear pointy black hats from time to time. You can believe in
them or not, but they do exist. Are they dangerous? I think
some may be.

David
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:10:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:115vloi424phu1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...
>> ?? Are you referring by chance to "hate speech"?
>
> But consider that "hate speech" is whatever the legislature
> of the moment proclaims it to be. Just because you happen
> to agree with them today is no protection that they won't
> get thrown out of office and people who don't agree with you will
> re-define "hate speech" tomorrow. People on BOTH sides of the political
> spectrum are endangered by this kind of totalarianism. You aren't seeing
> the larger picture.
> It is really true. People who don't heed history are doomed
> to repeat it.
>
right on.

It's interesting to see a thread wander off into so many random
areas that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

David
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I thought I was agreeing with you.

I despise censorship of any kind, left or right, communist or christian.
Free Speech, along with due process, is an absolute right that can
never be legitimately abridged. Not ever. Not during war or pestilence
or any kind of national emergency.

Not for David Horowitz. Not for Naom Chomsky. I welcome both, and
everyone else, to the un-ruled airwaves of honest intellectual reflection.


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin




Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...
>
>> ?? Are you referring by chance to "hate speech"?
>
>
> But consider that "hate speech" is whatever the legislature
> of the moment proclaims it to be. Just because you happen
> to agree with them today is no protection that they won't
> get thrown out of office and people who don't agree with you will
> re-define "hate speech" tomorrow. People on BOTH sides of the political
> spectrum are endangered by this kind of totalarianism. You aren't seeing
> the larger picture.
> It is really true. People who don't heed history are doomed
> to repeat it.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:44:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The message <115ul1qjmo5q15e@corp.supernews.com>
from "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> contains these words:

> > ..so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?

> I used the little clip-on remote control that Sony sells.
> Start/Stop and variable-speed zoom in/out. Clips right
> on to the stabilizer right under your thumb.

Zoom! Why would you want to zoom? Zooms are generally horrible & need to
be used very sparingly! A common error when a camera gets into the hands
of a novice - continual zooms.
Steadicams are generally used pretty wide angle to make it easier for
the operator.

--
Robin. (:0)
Isle of Wight. UK.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Robin Whitehead" <robin.w@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2005041511441783051@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> Zoom! Why would you want to zoom? Zooms are generally horrible & need to
> be used very sparingly! A common error when a camera gets into the hands
> of a novice - continual zooms.
> Steadicams are generally used pretty wide angle to make it easier for
> the operator.
>
In a perfect world where you can repeatedly say "action"
and "cut" you can avoid zooms, and perhaps should avoid
them unless you are using it as an effect.

There are reasons to zoom though. If you are covering an
event with a single camera you will sometimes want to be
wide to get all of the action into the frame, and you will also
want to be close so you can recognize faces. There is no
way to cover an event from a single position without a zoom.
I'm referring to an event where you have to cover the whole
thing from one end to the other without stopping for an hour.

Now, in context, you wouldn't normally want to cover such a
thing with this sort of stabilizer (does anybody own that word?)
and Robin is right it is much easier to do a good job with
such a device if you stay pretty wide. If you need a close-up
move closer.

Steadycam is a poor name for such a thing no matter how you
spell it. The one thing that such a device can't do is a nice steady
locked off shot. Floaticam would be a far more honest name.
Stabilizers are great for moving shots where it is impractical to
use a dolly, or if you need it as a special effect.

David
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Robin Whitehead" wrote ...
> Zoom! Why would you want to zoom? Zooms are
> generally horrible & need to be used very sparingly!
> A common error when a camera gets into the hands
> of a novice - continual zooms.

You don't do any single-camera coverage, do you?

> Steadicams are generally used pretty wide angle to make it
> easier for the operator.

I didn't say that I *USED* the zoom while the camera
is mounted on the plumbing camera stabilizer(*). I was
just describing the features of the Sony gadget.

Besides, "shaky-cam" is all the rage these days. Thanks
to MTV, NYPD Blue, et.al.

* Plumbalizer? Steadi-pipe? :-)
April 15, 2005 3:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Robin Whitehead" wrote ...
>
>> Zoom! Why would you want to zoom? Zooms are generally horrible & need
>> to be used very sparingly! A common error when a camera gets into the
>> hands of a novice - continual zooms.
>
>
> You don't do any single-camera coverage, do you?
>
>> Steadicams are generally used pretty wide angle to make it easier for
>> the operator.
>
>
> I didn't say that I *USED* the zoom while the camera
> is mounted on the plumbing camera stabilizer(*). I was
> just describing the features of the Sony gadget.
>
> Besides, "shaky-cam" is all the rage these days. Thanks
> to MTV, NYPD Blue, et.al.
>
> * Plumbalizer? Steadi-pipe? :-)

True, true. Interestingly, this little device does a fairly nice job of
letting you get the shakycam effect. If you move quickly about the
subject, you get a the shakey movements but they are smoothed out.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

David McCall wrote:
> right on.
>
> It's interesting to see a thread wander off into so many random
> areas that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

You think so? I call it "boring" and "off-topic".
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:10:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:115ukuqh4k2c518@corp.supernews.com...
> "Henry Padilla" wrote ...
>> I remember reading on HowStuffWorks.com that BluRay spelled their name
>> without the 'e' because you can't trademark a common phrase.
>
> That is apparently the opinion of BluRay's legal counsel.
> But just as clearly, there are those who have the opposite
> opinion (i.e. Micorsoft with "Windows", the rip-off cable
> people with "Monster", etc. etc. etc.) Go back and read
> the last year or two of postings from "Ptravel"
>
>> This may be why 1) SteadiCam spelled their name that way. 2) They can't
>> "go after" someone that is spelling it "steadycam".
>
> You could be sued for eating breakfast. Common sense
> disappeared from the legal community over the last decade
> or two.

As I've said a few times, this is why there's an entire branch of the legal
system devoted to this kind of garbage.

We can talk until we're blu in the face (see what I did there? Spelled blue
without the 'e'. I'm a goober.). Some judge will decide his fate if and
when he's ever confronted about this, which he may never be.

Tom P.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:31:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> writes:

>Many (most?) of the helicopter devices ARE active gyro
>stabilized. Interesting info at websites like...
>www.spacecam.com and www.camerasystems.com and
>www.tylermount.com, etc. etc.

Note to readers not familiar with these devices: "active" gyro
stabilization in these devices means that the gyros only measure
rotation, they don't supply any torque. The rotation info is fed to
filters and amplifiers that drive motors and *those* provide the torque
to keep the camera platform stable.

Dave
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:33:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc893c625648be798a988@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <425e721e$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>, mail@mail.com says...
>> Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
>> they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
>> making any money doing it.
>>
>> The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
>> with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, in order to prevent a name like this becoming generic, the
> company is required to pursue all infringements no matter how trivial,
> or the term will eventually be given up to public domain by default.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

Always assuming they can be proved to know about it, right?

I can't imagine someone being held responsible for know every use of their
trademark by everyone in the U.S. Heck most of us still don't know Cocaine,
Heroine, Cellophane, Nylon, or Escalator were brand names.

Besides, I would think that, depending on the size and mission of your
company, you may WANT your trademark to achieve generic status. I mean
think of FedEx. How many times have you FedEx'ed a package? Even when you
use the USPS or UPS. You still FedEx the package. Now THAT's being known.

Or Google. You think they'd be as big as they are if they stopped people
from using the name so much that it's almost a verb? It depends on how your
product fits in the grand scheme of things. Heck I'd give anything for my
videogrphy company to be as well known as Xerox, or Rolodex, or Dry Ice, or
Spandex.

Depends on your company mission and how much you think it'll add to your
exposure.

Check out this page for a good discussion (and huge list) of trademark
genericization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Tom P.
(You didn't think I pulled all those names out of thin air did you?)
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:33:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" wrote ...
> I can't imagine someone being held responsible for know
> every use of their trademark by everyone in the U.S.

Then you have a narrow view of the world. There is a whole
sub-industry that does nothing but research and clear use of
trademarked names/words/terms.

> Heck most of us still don't know Cocaine, Heroine, Cellophane,
> Nylon, or Escalator were brand names.

And if you were writing for commercial distribution, you
(or someone) would need to go and research those names.
You would discover that some of them are STILL registered
trademarks and subject to lawful use in whatever country.
The internet (and the glut of lawyers) has greatly complicated
this mess.

> Besides, I would think that, depending on the size and
> mission of your company, you may WANT your trademark
> to achieve generic status. I mean think of FedEx. How many
> times have you FedEx'ed a package? Even when you use
> the USPS or UPS. You still FedEx the package. Now
> THAT's being known.

And that is exactly how Xerox nearly lost their name. It is
NOT in the interest of any for-profit company to lose their
name to public domain. BayerAG can't be very happy about
losing their trademark "Asprin" as now their competition is
using it and depriving them of some portion of their income.

> Or Google. You think they'd be as big as they are if they
> stopped people from using the name so much that it's
> almost a verb? It depends on how your product fits in the
> grand scheme of things. Heck I'd give anything for my
> videogrphy company to be as well known as Xerox, or
> Rolodex, or Dry Ice, or Spandex.

If it were in unrestricted use, I could come along and use the
same name and steal your customers. You are'nt thinking your
theory all the way through.

> Depends on your company mission and how much you
> think it'll add to your exposure.

I work for a company who has one of the top-10 most
valuable names/trademarks in the world. You can bet
that there is a whole department of lawyers, etc. who
are chartered to protect that name that is worth millions
(billions?) of $$$. Same with lots of companies like,
Coca-Cola, Nike, etc, etc.

> Check out this page for a good discussion (and huge list)
> of trademark genericization.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

A useful but annonymous and unverified source of information.
Don't depend on it if you have any assets at risk.
April 15, 2005 4:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Henry Padilla" wrote ...
>
>> I can't imagine someone being held responsible for know every use of
>> their trademark by everyone in the U.S.
>
>
> Then you have a narrow view of the world. There is a whole
> sub-industry that does nothing but research and clear use of
> trademarked names/words/terms.

I could be argued that it is in fact the sub-industry that has the
narrow view of the world. Most of us are able to walk down the street
without concern over the actionable reprocussions of each and every step
we take.





>> Heck most of us still don't know Cocaine, Heroine, Cellophane, Nylon,
>> or Escalator were brand names.
>
>
> And if you were writing for commercial distribution, you
> (or someone) would need to go and research those names.
> You would discover that some of them are STILL registered
> trademarks and subject to lawful use in whatever country.
> The internet (and the glut of lawyers) has greatly complicated this mess.
>
>> Besides, I would think that, depending on the size and
>> mission of your company, you may WANT your trademark to achieve
>> generic status. I mean think of FedEx. How many times have you
>> FedEx'ed a package? Even when you use the USPS or UPS. You still
>> FedEx the package. Now THAT's being known.
>
>
> And that is exactly how Xerox nearly lost their name. It is
> NOT in the interest of any for-profit company to lose their
> name to public domain. BayerAG can't be very happy about
> losing their trademark "Asprin" as now their competition is
> using it and depriving them of some portion of their income.
>
>> Or Google. You think they'd be as big as they are if they stopped
>> people from using the name so much that it's almost a verb? It
>> depends on how your product fits in the grand scheme of things. Heck
>> I'd give anything for my videogrphy company to be as well known as
>> Xerox, or Rolodex, or Dry Ice, or Spandex.
>
>
> If it were in unrestricted use, I could come along and use the
> same name and steal your customers. You are'nt thinking your
> theory all the way through.
>
>> Depends on your company mission and how much you
>> think it'll add to your exposure.
>
>
> I work for a company who has one of the top-10 most
> valuable names/trademarks in the world. You can bet
> that there is a whole department of lawyers, etc. who
> are chartered to protect that name that is worth millions
> (billions?) of $$$. Same with lots of companies like,
> Coca-Cola, Nike, etc, etc.
>
>> Check out this page for a good discussion (and huge list) of trademark
>> genericization.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
>
>
> A useful but annonymous and unverified source of information.
> Don't depend on it if you have any assets at risk.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Uh.... it's happening already, I guess.

David McCall wrote:
>>
>>I can hear James Dobson right now: But there really are witches....
>>
>
> There really are people that consider themselves witches.
> All of them cast spells and such, and a few of them even
> wear pointy black hats from time to time. You can believe in
> them or not, but they do exist. Are they dangerous? I think
> some may be.
>
> David
>
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <dwO7e.2192$HK6.201@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
padillah@hotmail.com says...
> Always assuming they can be proved to know about it, right?
>

What they would probably do is have their lawyers send him a stern
letter threatening to take his splien, there would be no actual legal
action so no proof necessary.

>
> Besides, I would think that, depending on the size and mission of your
> company, you may WANT your trademark to achieve generic status. I mean
> think of FedEx. How many times have you FedEx'ed a package? Even when you
> use the USPS or UPS. You still FedEx the package. Now THAT's being known.

Must be an American thing, you would be seen as quite odd to say you
want to Fedex something here when you really meant UPS or Purolator.

>
> Or Google. You think they'd be as big as they are if they stopped people
> from using the name so much that it's almost a verb? It depends on how your
> product fits in the grand scheme of things. Heck I'd give anything for my
> videogrphy company to be as well known as Xerox, or Rolodex, or Dry Ice, or
> Spandex.

Well Google has already sued people for trying to make money of varients
of their name, Google actually owns just about everything that sounds
like Google. There was never any chance someone ELSE was going to come
up with a service called "Froogle". And yet, unlike Microsoft or Apple,
we still love them :)  As for Xerox, I think there are still people over
there at "The document company" that cry themselves to sleep at night
over losing their company's name :) 

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!