[geeks] DMCA strikes again?

[Kurt Huhn]

>    a) Protecting their product, and all trade marks,
>       service marks, and design (aka look and feel,
>       thanks Apple!)
>

That's where I take exception.  The goddamn look-n-feel complaint.  Maybe
it's right, maybe it's wrong.  All I know is that corporations with lawyers
seem to have more ability to make national policy than elected officials and
the people they (supposedly) represent.

Up until recently, these imitations/knockoffs/look-alikes were all over the
place - legally!  I mean, it's not like they're competing with Glock for
handgun sales...

I could be wrong, but I really don't like the look-n-feel feel complaint -
unless it can be proven that the offending product/manufacturer was
attempting to steal customers from a copyright holder company through
subversive advertising and product design methods.

> Do you have any info on the bidders? Try for a private
> sale if you do...
>

Unfortunately, eBay completely wiped any record of the auction from their
databases.  that means, I can't try to contact any of the bidders because I
don't have any record of who was bidding.  Bleagh....

I've also been threatened with being suspeded from eBay if I relist the item
without permission from Glock, Inc.

To suddenly make it illegal to have or sell an item due to a new law goes
against everything I know and love about the US.  For instance - I own, can
sell, and can buy all sorts of high capacity magazines for firearms - as
long as they were produced and originally sold before the ATF hi-cap
magazine ban took effect.  Perfectly legal.  I'm not allowed to manufacture
any, or own any manufactured after the ban though.

That's like saying that I wouldn't be allowed to sell an e-Machines or
Gateway all-in-one computer because they resemble an iMac.  Anyone know if
this is actually the case?

Kurt