It was Donald Trump who wanted to get all of the "peasant" farmers out of one area of Scotland so that he could build yet another executive golf course.
Luckily one of them held out long enough that Donald discovered a wind farm being built in the sea near by might spoil the view and he gave up the idea.
Donald Trump is an... well I cannot say it here.
Under copyright law, at least in the USA and all countries that have signed up to this, nothing is in the "public domain". As soon as you create it you have copyright on it. No registration required. Assuming you have "created" it not copied it. In fact I have yet to find a way of putting anything one creates into the public domain. One can attach a very liberal licence to it that allows any use for any reason, but that is not the same you still had to license it where as with public domain you would not have to.
Given the ridiculously huge length of copyright now a days for sure the Beanie is not in the public domain and will not be until, what is it now, 70 years after the creators death.
Anyway, copy right and public domain are a totally different set of laws to trade mark laws. They all get put under the "intellectual property" banner but they are very different.
Now I understand a lot more about you
Yes indeed. But who can afford it at todays prices?
That is all very interesting, but......
I was referring to Trademark Law, not Copyright Law. Can you explain to me how Copyright Law supercedes Trademark Law or vise-versa?
All the U.S. government publications are supposed to be exempt from copyright and this is mentioned in the US Constitution. That would seem like one group that is automatically in the public domain.
And. there is a time limit to copyrights that move ownership to the public domain after expiration. On the other hand, trademarks seem to not expire.
I don't think that the US government is permitted to sign away rights that are included in the US Constitution, but that seems to be where you are going with this. I do admit that the US Government is permitted to make treaties. But we all know that treaties generally exist until some country decides to no longer conform. We also know that the US has made quite a few treaties that it never really honored... just ask the Native American community.
And don't think that just because I once owned a rather short-lived head shop that that defines me. That would be far fetched. The store burned to the ground after about 6 months due to a red-neck arsonist. It was a foolish misadventure while I was in college and a financial loss. I certainly am not pro-marijuana at this point. And I am now not greedy enough to operate a business for a product that does harm to others.
I did experience the beginnings of the Hippie Era in San Francisco and saw how quickly organized crime and corrupt police were happy to exploit it all. A lot of naive youth got hurt and had their lives ruined. And icon's like Ken Kesey had rather tragic lives, just the same as Jack Keroac, Neil Cassidy, and others.
Can you explain to me how Copyright Law supercedes Trademark Law or vise-versa.
Not being a lawyer I would not even dare to start on such an explanation. (And I guess you never hear from lawyers on forums because they want money for their explanations:))
However I can imagine that if you create some funky new art work then you have copyright on it. If I then come along and adopt your funky new artwork as my companies trademark you may well have something to say about it. Who wins in court? Your guess is as good as mine.
I would cite Mickey Mouse as a case in point, the mouse image is copyrighted and my using it as a company logo will get be into a battle with Disney. However I guess Disney also defends the mouse as a trade mark so that they can stitch you up all ways around.
I do believe you are right about government publications. At least in the USA as far as I know. In the UK and common wealth counties things might get more complex with "crown copyright". However I meant what I said, I have yet to find a way I can put my creations into the public domain. At least without being dead for 100 years or however long it takes now a days.
True, copyright has a expiry time. But wow, it's so long today that most of us may as well assume its forever. we are not going to live long enough to see Harry Potter go public domain.
I don't think that the US government is permitted to sign away rights that are included in the US Constitution,
Seems that happens all the time. On some forums I visit they discuss all the time how the constitution is being increasingly overridden and ignored. How true that may be I'm not in a position to say. The excessive length of copyright protection today seems to go directly against the wording of the constitution as I read it. That's before we get onto things like provisions in the DMCA that can have you assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.
Well if we are arguing points of law and injustice, it seems some basis in reality might be required. I see where you are going with this Heater.
To backtrack a little,
1. The US Constitution specifically creates government authority for Patent and Copyright, federal trademark registration came much later, in about 1870.
2. There are TM trademarks that are defacto, and 'circle R' trademarks that are registered.
3. Edgar Rice Burroughs was the first to bridge the gap between copyright and trademark. He registered Tarzan as his own trademark and thus extended his ownership and control of the whole corpus of Tarzan stories beyond the life of the copyrights involved.
4. While a trademark is issued indefinitely, when an enterprise no longer uses it in business... they loose it.
5. There are four different categories that characterize a good trademark. The worst is 'generic' and the best is 'arbitrary and fanciful'. Consider the name 'Apple Computer' verses 'Apple Records'... quite generic. But the Apple Computer logo is a bit more towards the 'arbitrary and fanciful'. In the case of Parallax's use of the Beanie, I'd say it is quite 'arbitrary and fanciful' when applied to the Propeller, whereas the Propeller name might be considered rather general.
Copyrights are for works of art or design, trademarks are identifiable markings. There are ton's of images of apples, but only one Apple Computer logo. A bit of variation might be enough to use an apple. But in context with the same product markets, it becomes obvious that the pretender chooses to confuse and exploit another business's success and fame.
Treaty? I am not sure their are any real treaties that apply wholesale. There are trade agreements, but they only go so far. We don't have a world government.
And so, I think that Parallax should put a TM on the Propeller chips post haste and let the chips fall where they may.
Interesting points, and mostly true as far as I can tell.
Copyrights are for works of art or design, trademarks are identifiable markings.
Indeed, but as you said Mr Burroughs muddied those waters a long time ago.
In the case of Parallax's use of the Beanie, I'd say it is quite 'arbitrary and fanciful'
I would not.
In 1996 I attended a party where one guest turned up wearing a propeller beanie. As the booze flowed we all took turns in trying it on. Sadly I don't have the pictures anymore.
That beanie looked, in colour, proportion etc, exactly like the one Parallax uses. Forgive me if I am wrong but I think that predates Parallax's use of the beanie. So far from being "arbitary and fanciful" the Parallax Beanie is directly derived from what I had on my head in 1996.
Imagine for a moment the the propeller beanie copyright and/or trade mark was owned by Disney. What chance do you think Parallax would have when Disney says "don't use our IP". That's right, none.
As it happens I'm sure someone somewhere "owns" that IP which dates back to 1940 whatever as the history shows.
And that is why I was surprised to see Parallax dare to use the beanie.
Is any of this right or wrong? Who knows, at some point you have to give up or lay down the cash and take it to court.
P.S. I reiterate. I'm very happy parallax did dare to use the beanie. I love it:)
Interesting points, and mostly true as far as I can tell.
Indeed, but as you said Mr Burroughs muddied those waters a long time ago.
I would not.
In 1996 I attended a party where one guest turned up wearing a propeller beanie. As the booze flowed we all took turns in trying it on. Sadly I don't have the pictures anymore.
That beanie looked, in colour, proportion etc, exactly like the one Parallax uses. Forgive me if I am wrong but I think that predates Parallax's use of the beanie. So far from being "arbitary and fanciful" the Parallax Beanie is directly derived from what I had on my head in 1996.
Imagine for a moment the the propeller beanie copyright and/or trade mark was owned by Disney. What chance do you think Parallax would have when Disney says "don't use our IP". That's right, none.
As it happens I'm sure someone somewhere "owns" that IP which dates back to 1940 whatever as the history shows.
And that is why I was surprised to see Parallax dare to use the beanie.
Is any of this right or wrong? Who knows, at some point you have to give up or lay down the cash and take it to court.
P.S. I reiterate. I'm very happy parallax did dare to use the beanie. I love it:)
Let's see... you attend a party, someone is wearing a beanie, you get drunk, they get drunk, the beanie is passed around.
And henseforth, Parallax is not entitled to a beanie trademark.
You are revealing yourself at great depth here. Care to admit to wearing any women's garments as well? You were very drunk, everyone was very drunk, and yet you claim to recall with great precision!
I really truly cannot see the link between a party in 1996 and the invalidation of the use of a trademark.
I suspect the fact that Parallax currenty chooses not to even use a TM with the beanie indicates that nothing you or I say will have any bearing of the fate of the Parallax Beanie. Parallax seems to be considering a decorative item, somewhat akin to how Ford names a car the mustang.
You insist on muddling all intellectual property together = patents, copyrights, and trademarks. They are quite different. In fact, the US goverment has an Office of Patents and Trademarks for their registration and the Library of Congress register's copyright. Also, the court process for a trademark is entirely a civil suit without criminal penalty, where as a violation of a patent or copyright might result in criminal prosecution.
...you attend a party, someone is wearing a beanie, you get drunk, they get drunk, the beanie is passed around. And henseforth, Parallax is not entitled to a beanie trademark.
Err, no. What I do at parties is not so important on the world stage. The point of the party story is to emphasis that the beanie was a common icon a long time ago. Somebody somewhere made that thing and quite likely would claim some ownership over it. Like Disney and Micky Mouse tee shirts. That IP claim might be copyright or trade mark it makes little odds.
You are revealing yourself at great depth here. Care to admit to wearing any women's garments as well? You were very drunk, everyone was very drunk, and yet you claim to recall with great precision!
Perhaps so. Yes I recall with great precision. Maybe it was because of the very good looking girl who brought that beanie to the party. May I was not as drunk as I make out. Maybe I had the photo's around for years after to remind me. Maybe the propeller beanie was so common every one would know it, which is my main point here.
As for women's clothing. well, not as far as I remember. But hey, if Richard Feynman can attend a party dressed as Queen Elizabeth II and the do a strip tease at the end of the evening, why not me?!
I suspect the fact that Parallax currenty chooses not to even use a TM with the beanie indicates that nothing you or I say will have any bearing of the fate of the Parallax Beanie.
I think it indicates they are very wise:)
You insist on muddling all intellectual property together
No, I do not. See previous posts. But let's face it, if you go to market with a Micky Mouse tee shirt they will get you one way or another. It makes little odds.
Parallax is free to use the beanie until someone challenges it. If anyone ever challenges it, they ought to be sure they are the biggest entity with the deepest pockets in the ring. Once you open the pandora's box of challenge, you generate interest in ownership and licensing and then the biggest pile of cash wins...after all, it is the "legal system"!!
There was big money to make and protect through the apple, there is even bigger money and reputation to be made with mouse ears. To the wealthy go the spoils of law.
You are all quite jaded. I've friend that just won a rather lengthy estate battle in the U.K. with a welfare assigned lawyer. Some of the best work that lawyers have done for me has been the cheapest.
The Chinese tend to take the view that when a case goes to court everyone gets punished for behaving badly.
The facts speak for themselves.
A. Heater cannot seem to separate trademark, copyright, and patent law.
B. Heater doesn't seem to see that American law is not internatonal law.
C. Heater apparently never got the telephone number of that pretty girl with the beanie in 1996, or was so drunk that he forgot it.
I guess little this debate is over. You have now descended from debate into personal slander, mud slinging and abuse. None of the above was called for.
I will let the forum judge my credibility for itself. I'm sure they don't need your help.
Somewhere up above, Loopy pointed out that this is the second time the beanie has been used to promote a processor other than the Propeller. You guys know we were first and that's all we care about.
Truthfully, even though we have first use of a propeller beanie hat in this nature I don't think we're up for tangling with $1B+ companies who have legal staff on-hand specifically for eradicating and legitimate prior uses, whether trademarked or copyrighted. There's nothing more damaging to a small R&D company that aims to deliver a new processor under our own financial/design steam than to engage in soul-sucking, financial-bloodletting, staff-wrecking endeavor of trying to defend our use of the beanie. Trust me, you guys don't want us to spend your money this way, I assure you! None of you want Chip's attention anywhere near such an issue. Even though he wouldn't be needed from a legal standpoint, he'll furiously engage in his own research for many nights in a row, diverting design passion towards legal issues with no real outcome.
Our mission is to deliver a quality educational program around the Propeller, with open tools and a small assortment of accepted languages (Spin/ASM/C) and to bring the Propeller 2 to a higher level of commercial success. Propeller 2 has been sent to the foundry and we have much work to do around tools, documentation, and characterization to release this product (should it function per spec). We also have the possibility of multiple shuttle runs. There's nothing in this mission about offensive tactics around intellectual property portfolios.
We're doing what we do because we enjoy it. Parallax has an amazing, skilled customer base and a very loyal following. We're motivated by the technology and successful customers, freedom in our work, and challenging ourselves to deliver the best quality fabrication of our products.
I will have our corporate legal counsel take a read on this thread, but keep in mind he'll be kept on a very short leash. Woof, woof. And he's an excellent attorney who fully understands our motivations. He doesn't pick fights.
And about the beanie. It won't be on Propeller 2 chips - we will be disassociating the beanie from all future Propeller devices. The use of the beanie is somewhat accepted by most of our forum members (you guys are already here), but it has proven to be an inhibitor by managers in product design companies when considering our chip. Shallow, yes, but a real problem. Strangely, what we have so much of today (hobby use, forum activity) probably needn't be furthered marketing-wise by using a beanie. But these giant companies seem to need it on order to bring about a more casual nerd-appeal to their devices.
Thanks for restating the Parallax mission. We all know it of course but it does raise the spirits to be reminded occasionally that there are people like you and companies like Parallax out there in this dog-eat-dog world.
It will be sad not to see the beanie on the Prop II but we do understand the reasoning there.
Hey, I am from the UK. We used "chain yanking" all the time. I guess Americans think dog chains but I always imagine annoying people by pulling the chain on the systern in their out house.
Debate with Heater is pointless... He just goes on and on and on..... I could say more, but Heater wants the last word.
The British have such quaint toilets with chains and all. No wonder we can't comprehend their wit.
@Ken
No beanie on the Propeller 2! What a pity..... But I suppose that those corporate buyers dislike the serendipity of such a logo and sales do drive this venture. Of course, it makes discrete OEM sales rather difficult as well.
How about another logo for the Propeller 2, maybe a Dutch Windmill? Or a biplane? A playapus?
No beanie on the Propeller 2! What a pity..... But I suppose that those corporate buyers dislike the serendipity of such a logo and sales do drive this venture. Of course, it makes discrete OEM sales rather difficult as well.
How about another logo for the Propeller 2, maybe a Dutch Windmill? Or a biplane? A playapus?
We're not making the same mistake twice with this beanie. Clearly, the acceptance of the beanie on the forums will be higher than elsewhere. But you are already here, and there are countless others who are not.
I've attached the preliminary logo for the Propeller 2 shuttle run. It's a basic image with a part number.
Fozzie Bear, Propeller Beanie, Apple, Golden Arches???? Not a problem if those that might complain have some stock options in exchange for not filling a complaint.
How about this Kline Bottle? Some images of a Kline Bottle look like a hospital appliance, but this one does not.
If you bisect a Kline Bottle, you get two Moebius strips with opposite twists. That has 'Kool', and I do not meaning the tobacco product.
Fozzie Bear, Propeller Beanie, Apple, Golden Arches???? Not a problem if those that might complain have some stock options in exchange for not filling a complaint.
How about this Kline Bottle? Some images of a Kline Bottle look like a hospital appliance, but this one does not.
If you bisect a Kline Bottle, you get two Moebius strips with opposite twists. That has 'Kool', and I do not meaning the tobacco product.
The Spitfire is extremely iconic and preformed quite well in defense of England. With its elliptical wing, it is extremely easy to identify at unique in a tiny monochrome graphic on a chip.
But I guess with airplanes, we are bound to have all sorts of opinions.
Comments
It was Donald Trump who wanted to get all of the "peasant" farmers out of one area of Scotland so that he could build yet another executive golf course.
Luckily one of them held out long enough that Donald discovered a wind farm being built in the sea near by might spoil the view and he gave up the idea.
Donald Trump is an... well I cannot say it here.
That is all very interesting, but......
I was referring to Trademark Law, not Copyright Law. Can you explain to me how Copyright Law supercedes Trademark Law or vise-versa?
All the U.S. government publications are supposed to be exempt from copyright and this is mentioned in the US Constitution. That would seem like one group that is automatically in the public domain.
And. there is a time limit to copyrights that move ownership to the public domain after expiration. On the other hand, trademarks seem to not expire.
I don't think that the US government is permitted to sign away rights that are included in the US Constitution, but that seems to be where you are going with this. I do admit that the US Government is permitted to make treaties. But we all know that treaties generally exist until some country decides to no longer conform. We also know that the US has made quite a few treaties that it never really honored... just ask the Native American community.
And don't think that just because I once owned a rather short-lived head shop that that defines me. That would be far fetched. The store burned to the ground after about 6 months due to a red-neck arsonist. It was a foolish misadventure while I was in college and a financial loss. I certainly am not pro-marijuana at this point. And I am now not greedy enough to operate a business for a product that does harm to others.
I did experience the beginnings of the Hippie Era in San Francisco and saw how quickly organized crime and corrupt police were happy to exploit it all. A lot of naive youth got hurt and had their lives ruined. And icon's like Ken Kesey had rather tragic lives, just the same as Jack Keroac, Neil Cassidy, and others.
The problem is tyranny, of all sorts.
However I can imagine that if you create some funky new art work then you have copyright on it. If I then come along and adopt your funky new artwork as my companies trademark you may well have something to say about it. Who wins in court? Your guess is as good as mine.
I would cite Mickey Mouse as a case in point, the mouse image is copyrighted and my using it as a company logo will get be into a battle with Disney. However I guess Disney also defends the mouse as a trade mark so that they can stitch you up all ways around.
I do believe you are right about government publications. At least in the USA as far as I know. In the UK and common wealth counties things might get more complex with "crown copyright". However I meant what I said, I have yet to find a way I can put my creations into the public domain. At least without being dead for 100 years or however long it takes now a days.
True, copyright has a expiry time. But wow, it's so long today that most of us may as well assume its forever. we are not going to live long enough to see Harry Potter go public domain. Seems that happens all the time. On some forums I visit they discuss all the time how the constitution is being increasingly overridden and ignored. How true that may be I'm not in a position to say. The excessive length of copyright protection today seems to go directly against the wording of the constitution as I read it. That's before we get onto things like provisions in the DMCA that can have you assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.
To backtrack a little,
1. The US Constitution specifically creates government authority for Patent and Copyright, federal trademark registration came much later, in about 1870.
2. There are TM trademarks that are defacto, and 'circle R' trademarks that are registered.
3. Edgar Rice Burroughs was the first to bridge the gap between copyright and trademark. He registered Tarzan as his own trademark and thus extended his ownership and control of the whole corpus of Tarzan stories beyond the life of the copyrights involved.
4. While a trademark is issued indefinitely, when an enterprise no longer uses it in business... they loose it.
5. There are four different categories that characterize a good trademark. The worst is 'generic' and the best is 'arbitrary and fanciful'. Consider the name 'Apple Computer' verses 'Apple Records'... quite generic. But the Apple Computer logo is a bit more towards the 'arbitrary and fanciful'. In the case of Parallax's use of the Beanie, I'd say it is quite 'arbitrary and fanciful' when applied to the Propeller, whereas the Propeller name might be considered rather general.
Copyrights are for works of art or design, trademarks are identifiable markings. There are ton's of images of apples, but only one Apple Computer logo. A bit of variation might be enough to use an apple. But in context with the same product markets, it becomes obvious that the pretender chooses to confuse and exploit another business's success and fame.
Treaty? I am not sure their are any real treaties that apply wholesale. There are trade agreements, but they only go so far. We don't have a world government.
And so, I think that Parallax should put a TM on the Propeller chips post haste and let the chips fall where they may.
I would not.
In 1996 I attended a party where one guest turned up wearing a propeller beanie. As the booze flowed we all took turns in trying it on. Sadly I don't have the pictures anymore.
That beanie looked, in colour, proportion etc, exactly like the one Parallax uses. Forgive me if I am wrong but I think that predates Parallax's use of the beanie. So far from being "arbitary and fanciful" the Parallax Beanie is directly derived from what I had on my head in 1996.
Imagine for a moment the the propeller beanie copyright and/or trade mark was owned by Disney. What chance do you think Parallax would have when Disney says "don't use our IP". That's right, none.
As it happens I'm sure someone somewhere "owns" that IP which dates back to 1940 whatever as the history shows.
And that is why I was surprised to see Parallax dare to use the beanie.
Is any of this right or wrong? Who knows, at some point you have to give up or lay down the cash and take it to court.
P.S. I reiterate. I'm very happy parallax did dare to use the beanie. I love it:)
Let's see... you attend a party, someone is wearing a beanie, you get drunk, they get drunk, the beanie is passed around.
And henseforth, Parallax is not entitled to a beanie trademark.
You are revealing yourself at great depth here. Care to admit to wearing any women's garments as well? You were very drunk, everyone was very drunk, and yet you claim to recall with great precision!
I really truly cannot see the link between a party in 1996 and the invalidation of the use of a trademark.
I suspect the fact that Parallax currenty chooses not to even use a TM with the beanie indicates that nothing you or I say will have any bearing of the fate of the Parallax Beanie. Parallax seems to be considering a decorative item, somewhat akin to how Ford names a car the mustang.
You insist on muddling all intellectual property together = patents, copyrights, and trademarks. They are quite different. In fact, the US goverment has an Office of Patents and Trademarks for their registration and the Library of Congress register's copyright. Also, the court process for a trademark is entirely a civil suit without criminal penalty, where as a violation of a patent or copyright might result in criminal prosecution.
As for women's clothing. well, not as far as I remember. But hey, if Richard Feynman can attend a party dressed as Queen Elizabeth II and the do a strip tease at the end of the evening, why not me?! I think it indicates they are very wise:) No, I do not. See previous posts. But let's face it, if you go to market with a Micky Mouse tee shirt they will get you one way or another. It makes little odds.
There was big money to make and protect through the apple, there is even bigger money and reputation to be made with mouse ears. To the wealthy go the spoils of law.
The Chinese tend to take the view that when a case goes to court everyone gets punished for behaving badly.
The facts speak for themselves.
A. Heater cannot seem to separate trademark, copyright, and patent law.
B. Heater doesn't seem to see that American law is not internatonal law.
C. Heater apparently never got the telephone number of that pretty girl with the beanie in 1996, or was so drunk that he forgot it.
There are some credibility issues in play.
I guess little this debate is over. You have now descended from debate into personal slander, mud slinging and abuse. None of the above was called for.
I will let the forum judge my credibility for itself. I'm sure they don't need your help.
Thank you.
Truthfully, even though we have first use of a propeller beanie hat in this nature I don't think we're up for tangling with $1B+ companies who have legal staff on-hand specifically for eradicating and legitimate prior uses, whether trademarked or copyrighted. There's nothing more damaging to a small R&D company that aims to deliver a new processor under our own financial/design steam than to engage in soul-sucking, financial-bloodletting, staff-wrecking endeavor of trying to defend our use of the beanie. Trust me, you guys don't want us to spend your money this way, I assure you! None of you want Chip's attention anywhere near such an issue. Even though he wouldn't be needed from a legal standpoint, he'll furiously engage in his own research for many nights in a row, diverting design passion towards legal issues with no real outcome.
Our mission is to deliver a quality educational program around the Propeller, with open tools and a small assortment of accepted languages (Spin/ASM/C) and to bring the Propeller 2 to a higher level of commercial success. Propeller 2 has been sent to the foundry and we have much work to do around tools, documentation, and characterization to release this product (should it function per spec). We also have the possibility of multiple shuttle runs. There's nothing in this mission about offensive tactics around intellectual property portfolios.
We're doing what we do because we enjoy it. Parallax has an amazing, skilled customer base and a very loyal following. We're motivated by the technology and successful customers, freedom in our work, and challenging ourselves to deliver the best quality fabrication of our products.
I will have our corporate legal counsel take a read on this thread, but keep in mind he'll be kept on a very short leash. Woof, woof. And he's an excellent attorney who fully understands our motivations. He doesn't pick fights.
And about the beanie. It won't be on Propeller 2 chips - we will be disassociating the beanie from all future Propeller devices. The use of the beanie is somewhat accepted by most of our forum members (you guys are already here), but it has proven to be an inhibitor by managers in product design companies when considering our chip. Shallow, yes, but a real problem. Strangely, what we have so much of today (hobby use, forum activity) probably needn't be furthered marketing-wise by using a beanie. But these giant companies seem to need it on order to bring about a more casual nerd-appeal to their devices.
And the personal Heater record is very good. I think George was probably just having a bit of fun with the issue, beyond debate.
Please, feel free to carry on the debate.
Thanks for restating the Parallax mission. We all know it of course but it does raise the spirits to be reminded occasionally that there are people like you and companies like Parallax out there in this dog-eat-dog world.
It will be sad not to see the beanie on the Prop II but we do understand the reasoning there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5yvIKMCIPs
I prefer the Bonzo's "Jolity Farm" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNRPUf9AVAA
The British have such quaint toilets with chains and all. No wonder we can't comprehend their wit.
@Ken
No beanie on the Propeller 2! What a pity..... But I suppose that those corporate buyers dislike the serendipity of such a logo and sales do drive this venture. Of course, it makes discrete OEM sales rather difficult as well.
How about another logo for the Propeller 2, maybe a Dutch Windmill? Or a biplane? A playapus?
We're not making the same mistake twice with this beanie. Clearly, the acceptance of the beanie on the forums will be higher than elsewhere. But you are already here, and there are countless others who are not.
I've attached the preliminary logo for the Propeller 2 shuttle run. It's a basic image with a part number.
Business people just have no sense of fun.
I'll try to post a couple of alternatives.
There is a huge catalog of Celtic knots that would do nicely.
How about this Kline Bottle? Some images of a Kline Bottle look like a hospital appliance, but this one does not.
If you bisect a Kline Bottle, you get two Moebius strips with opposite twists. That has 'Kool', and I do not meaning the tobacco product.
It's a Klein Bottle!
Still quaint, the Taiwanese have progressed to push buttons.
That won't do because Parallax wants to convey an image of top performance for the chip...
Obviously the only image for that is the P-51D Mustang.
Attachment not found.
But I guess with airplanes, we are bound to have all sorts of opinions.
Attachment not found.
My father flew P-51 in the war is the only reason I flung it up there.