My middle name is John, does that make be John Barton as well?
Yes you are John Barton also. I have it on good authority that John Barton controls half of the accounts on AZB.
Just accept it and move on....
- Thread starter duckie
- Start date
Yes you are John Barton also. I have it on good authority that John Barton controls half of the accounts on AZB.
Why do children die? It's because God allows it to be that way.
He, she, or, it needs a punch in the nose too!
TheThaiger
Banned
i believe you are talking about Neil, correct? :grin: he started the stalking/trolling thing with Neil after he trolled the shit out of JBcases and then was banned. Neil leaves and we are stuck with the imbecile, i wonder who lost here
What Neil did or didn't do has no bearing here. He alone was responsible for his actions.
TheThaiger
Banned
When did John hit the road to China - 2006, wasn't it?
Certainly it was Neil's choice to leave. But when a person is being harassed and hounded then it's not correct to say that he acted without some influence.
By now enough is known about "you" that it would be possible to make comments designed to elicit a predictable response just for sport. When you know how you can get to a person then you can certainly push them around. That's simple psychology that every child knows by the third grade.
You would probably enjoy it if someone were to stalk you for sport. But for anyone trying to make meaningful contributions having a stalker is annoying in the least and in some cases criminal harassment at the worst.
Cest'le vie though. Everyone here chooses to be here in whatever capacity they choose to be here in. For some it's simply a game to be played and for others it's simply a place to hang out. Those who are playing games are simply being childish and why not? Simple free fun and if someone over steps the line then they will probably be made to pay for their transgressions in some way at some point. Or not and eiher way life goes on.
When someone like PSA offers himself as a toy then why not take the gift? Not all of us are terminally humourless.
TheThaiger
Banned
You can't legislate for what people think or perceive. The tail cannot wag the dog - ever. Neil thought he was the dog. He thought he was beyond scrutiny.
I agree with the rest of your post.
I have no idea what the issue was that pushed Neil over since I am often gone for months at a time. And you're right you can't legislate thought. But you can certainly contol action by setting the climate. Other forums manage to do this and don't have the drama seen on this forum. They also don't have as much childish fun.
I think you're both right. Sure, proper moderation of the forum would prevent certain factions from "controlling" the air, or general setting of the environment.
But at the same time, it's up to each individual to legislate THEMSELVES. It's also up to each person to make his/her experience at a forum a stepping stone -- learn by their mistakes, and modify their behavior accordingly. By going through the herculean effort of removing all of his content, Neil has shown that he is incapable of adapting -- and WORSE -- that his many years at AZB have now been wasted time in his life.
It's one thing if you quit contributing because you don't like the management of a forum, but leave content out there so that even the innocent drive-by readers can still learn. That time he spent on knowledge sharing was worth his time, and he would have left a lasting, positive mark on the pool world. The old adage, "when you're handed a lemon, make lemonade" applies.
But by deleting his content, he removed his mark -- and his positive influence -- on the pool world. That is the worst sin of all -- a complete waste of one's chapter in one's life. Unfortunately, the pool world is filled with pettiness like this -- we'll never learn.
-Sean
I don't agree. I think pulling all of your content is the ultimate protest. It shows that you are willing to sacrifice something you worked on for the greater principle. I would suggest to everyone that they pull their content from every forum which places so little value on good contributers. This is one reason some forums have a time limit on how long you can edit your posts. I don't consider Neil's action petty at all. I consider it to be an unfortunate and brave decision rooted firmly in the dysfunctional climate. Sometimes a major sacrifice is required to make a point.
But also unfortunately the greater reality is that it doesn't matter. If any of us and all of our content disappears from AZB then it makes not a bit of difference in the current atmosphere.
Likewise, JB thought he was the top dog beyond all scrutiny.
Right, and from a viewer's perspective (i.e. someone who would've stumbled across Neil's content if he'd left it), the greater principle is what, exactly? That audit trail -- and the principle that applied to it -- is now lost. The whole point -- kit and kaboodle -- went into oblivion, and the only people that remember it are the people that were there. (Yes, I know that some of Neil's content is "quoted" by posters replying to it, so yes, some of it is still out there for newbies to trip across. But the lion's share of it is gone.) I don't think it was courageous at all. In fact, I think it was cowardly. (And I say this from the standpoint of someone that does knowledge transfer for a living.)
But even if we disagree on that courage/cowardice aspect, you're right that if the whole site disappeared, it's a moot issue.
-Sean
You are telepathic now?
Let's continue connecting the dots on Roadie's affiliation with John Barton.
In this thread regarding "Copyright and trademark question", http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=240183, take a look at Roadie's posts #5, 15, 22, 23, 25 and 29.
In these postings, Roadie demonstrates that he is extremely familiar with copyright and trademark laws and he is extremely familiar with John Barton's personal history, as well as with the history of JB cases and with the J. Flowers trademark name.
Roadie's involvement and knowledge of so many different aspects of John Barton's life is just another nail in the coffin that the two are the same person. Read Roadie's post shown below for a example of what I'm talking about:
That is correct. There is no infringement whatsoever. People often jump to the wrong conclusions based on their feelings rather than their actual knowledge of the law. Mr. Barton created a trademark. He did not approriate one. Mr. Flowers did not brand his cases as Flowers cases in the same way that Mr. Justis has done. The brand name used by Mr. Flowers was J.EF Q Cases. Legally a trademark is a very specific logo or collection of words that are attached by the trademark owner to a product or service.
Mr. Barton created a wholly new trademark. "J.Flowers" is no different than J.Smith in this instance. However if Mr. Barton had chosen J.Justis which is technically also an original brand name it is very likely that a court would find that this brand name is confusingly similar to Jack Justis or simply Justis Cases and they would disallow it.
As to the physical appearance or design there is not any automatic copyright extended to utilitarian objects. Thus the construction and shape of a cue case is not protected unless the creator applies for and is granted a design patent. Design patents, when granted, are very narrow in scope and easily circumvented. However Mr. Barton did not copy the construction or appearance of the original cases built by Mr. Flowers so that point is moot.
Next up is the decoration. Artistic expression used on a utilitarian object does have some copyright protection IF it was copyrighted in a protected medium previously. So if you draw an eight ball on a piece of paper that rendering is copyright protected by American law from the moment you create it. I am not legally allowed to then take that image and put it on coffee mugs and sell them without your written permission. The simple arrangement of decorative elements on a utilitarian item is by itself not protected by copyright and falls under the rubrik of design patent above.
One could make the argument for trade dress which is what Apple is using to sue Samsung in their dispute. Apple is claiming that Samsung has copied the look and feel of what makes an Apple product distinctive and therefore they are capitalizing on Apple's trade dress. This argument is tough to prove and will involve millions to settle among these two companies. In general trade dress is though to come about as a developmental process from many influences inside and outside the company. So to say that Mr. Barton has made a cue case that has a similar look and feel to those made by Mr. Flowers would be correct in a loose sense but since Mr. Flowers' cases are no longer made then there is no chance of infringement of trade dress. And in that vein the same argument of infringement of trade dress then also applies to the cases being made by Mr. Justis and Mr. Swift among others. However to be clear this argument would not get very far in the court because the differences in the products of all three current makers are significant enough.
This is a long educational piece about copyright and trademark. The answer to your question is that no, Mr. Barton is not infringing in any way on the intellectual property that Mr. Flowers could have or would have owned. Regarding trademarks it is also important to note that they have a shelf life. Registered trademarks have a term of ten years and design patents have a protected span of 17-20 years and then they MUST be renewed or they lapse. Unregistered trademarks, those designated with the TM or SM symbol, must remain in constant use or they lapse from disuse.
A registered trademark is considered live or dead. Live is when it is in use and registered or in the application process. The trademark office also has rules about using a trademark once it has been registered. They frown on people who register trademarks only to prevent others from using it with no intention to actually use it in commerce. Dead is when a trademark application has been abandoned or the registration has lapsed. At the instant that a trademark is considered dead then it is fair game for anyone to register it and in fact there are services that specialize in attempting to register trademarks which go dead through the negligence of the trademark owner.
Specifically where this applies to Mr. Flowers and his descendants or partners is that the brand name used J.EF Q Cases was not a federally registered trademark. Thus in order to remain live it would have to be in constant use. Which it has not been since the mid-90s. So legally the brand is dead. Legally Mr. Barton could have simply taken that brand. Of course in some people's view he would have been morally wrong to revive that brand and would been even more falsely accused of theft than he has been.
Now that you have the knowledge of what is legal you can make up your own mind as to the morality of Mr. Barton's use of the J.Flowers trademark and the use of certain designs that a somewhat similar to some of the cases made by Mr. Flowers. I don't find anything wrong with it either legally or morally and think that Mr. Barton has done a fine job of creating a line to pay tribute to Mr. Flowers. He owes a tithe to no one in this case.
Mr. Barton created a wholly new trademark. "J.Flowers" is no different than J.Smith in this instance. However if Mr. Barton had chosen J.Justis which is technically also an original brand name it is very likely that a court would find that this brand name is confusingly similar to Jack Justis or simply Justis Cases and they would disallow it.
As to the physical appearance or design there is not any automatic copyright extended to utilitarian objects. Thus the construction and shape of a cue case is not protected unless the creator applies for and is granted a design patent. Design patents, when granted, are very narrow in scope and easily circumvented. However Mr. Barton did not copy the construction or appearance of the original cases built by Mr. Flowers so that point is moot.
Next up is the decoration. Artistic expression used on a utilitarian object does have some copyright protection IF it was copyrighted in a protected medium previously. So if you draw an eight ball on a piece of paper that rendering is copyright protected by American law from the moment you create it. I am not legally allowed to then take that image and put it on coffee mugs and sell them without your written permission. The simple arrangement of decorative elements on a utilitarian item is by itself not protected by copyright and falls under the rubrik of design patent above.
One could make the argument for trade dress which is what Apple is using to sue Samsung in their dispute. Apple is claiming that Samsung has copied the look and feel of what makes an Apple product distinctive and therefore they are capitalizing on Apple's trade dress. This argument is tough to prove and will involve millions to settle among these two companies. In general trade dress is though to come about as a developmental process from many influences inside and outside the company. So to say that Mr. Barton has made a cue case that has a similar look and feel to those made by Mr. Flowers would be correct in a loose sense but since Mr. Flowers' cases are no longer made then there is no chance of infringement of trade dress. And in that vein the same argument of infringement of trade dress then also applies to the cases being made by Mr. Justis and Mr. Swift among others. However to be clear this argument would not get very far in the court because the differences in the products of all three current makers are significant enough.
This is a long educational piece about copyright and trademark. The answer to your question is that no, Mr. Barton is not infringing in any way on the intellectual property that Mr. Flowers could have or would have owned. Regarding trademarks it is also important to note that they have a shelf life. Registered trademarks have a term of ten years and design patents have a protected span of 17-20 years and then they MUST be renewed or they lapse. Unregistered trademarks, those designated with the TM or SM symbol, must remain in constant use or they lapse from disuse.
A registered trademark is considered live or dead. Live is when it is in use and registered or in the application process. The trademark office also has rules about using a trademark once it has been registered. They frown on people who register trademarks only to prevent others from using it with no intention to actually use it in commerce. Dead is when a trademark application has been abandoned or the registration has lapsed. At the instant that a trademark is considered dead then it is fair game for anyone to register it and in fact there are services that specialize in attempting to register trademarks which go dead through the negligence of the trademark owner.
Specifically where this applies to Mr. Flowers and his descendants or partners is that the brand name used J.EF Q Cases was not a federally registered trademark. Thus in order to remain live it would have to be in constant use. Which it has not been since the mid-90s. So legally the brand is dead. Legally Mr. Barton could have simply taken that brand. Of course in some people's view he would have been morally wrong to revive that brand and would been even more falsely accused of theft than he has been.
Now that you have the knowledge of what is legal you can make up your own mind as to the morality of Mr. Barton's use of the J.Flowers trademark and the use of certain designs that a somewhat similar to some of the cases made by Mr. Flowers. I don't find anything wrong with it either legally or morally and think that Mr. Barton has done a fine job of creating a line to pay tribute to Mr. Flowers. He owes a tithe to no one in this case.
Last edited:
Cowardly?? And this from someone that tries to make a point of superiority by stating what they do for a living?? Amazing that you still have a job in that field!
Did it ever occur to you that it was MY knowledge that I was sharing, and I am free to share it with whom I will, and not share it with whom I don't care to?? Quite frankly, people like you are the reason they all got deleted. You want it all for free, but when the person sharing the knowledge asks for help, what's he get?? NOTHING! Numerous times I asked others, including you specifically, to help do something about some of the people on here, you chose to do nothing, so now you have nothing but the troublemakers.
Thaiger wants to state that I thought of myself as a dog. Well, some of us were the "dogs" on here. Mike and Wilson are the dog owners. Some, such as Thaiger, PoolSharkAllen, Duckie, and a few others, are nothing more than the ticks on the dog. They contribute nothing of value, just want to suck the life out of everthing. And, apparently, the owners and the other dogs don't seem to care enough to do something about them.
I chose to try and get rid of the ticks. When that failed, I did the reasonable thing and left the area that was tick infested. I don't like the way the ticks make me react, so I was gone.
As to my previous posting being a collosal waste of time, maybe to you it was. To me, and quite a few others, it wasn't. I helped quite a few on here improve their pool game. I don't consider that a waste of time. I am not out to "make a legacy", like you apparently are. I was just here to help others. That I did. Nice to see your real reason for your posting on here though, just to make a name for yourself. Frankly, that means nothing to me. I just wanted to help, and when that became impossible, I chose to leave. Apparently you also think all the pros that don't post on here are cowardly because they won't freely share their knowledge with anyone on here. At least some on here got the benefit of what I did share freely for a while.
And, as previously stated, as long as there are people like you around, that are willing to put up with a tick infested hide, nothing will change. I'm curious though, how much precious time have YOU spent scratching the ticks? Time you won't get back, and shouldn't of had to waste in the first place? Go ahead and keep scratching them, and wasting more time knocking those that were smart enough to go somewhere else.
I deleted because I no longer wish to share with people that only want to attack, not learn something. What is cowardly, is that you choose to call me more names when I'm gone, than to stand up and do something to make the forums a decent place that others would want to share info in.
As a side benefit, I had hoped on an outside chance that a byproduct of me deleting everything would open a few eyes around here, and maybe give some the courage to stand up and do something beneficial here. I see that was just too much of an outside chance of happening now.
Oh, and Thaiger and PSAllen, go ahead and report me for referring to you as ticks. I guess that is a terrible thing to do on here. Of course, you referring to me as a dog is perfectly acceptable.
And, Sfleinlin, I'll leave this post up just for you.