| |
At 08:59 PM 9/3/99 GMT, you wrote:
> Jonathan Knudsen <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> > Finally, the title will probably change, to avoid
> > legal trouble with you-know-who.
>
> Really? Lawyers are silly. What possible problem could there be?
The whole thing is kind of silly. LEGO felt that
we shouldn't be allowed to publish a book without
paying them a license fee. We didn't think we
needed to pay a license fee to write about their
product; after all, we don't do that for anyone
else, like Sun, or Microsoft.
Basically we need to change the title in
order to avoid marketplace confusion--it needs
to be very clear that our product is not produced
or supported by LEGO. We'll also have
a prominent disclaimer inside somewhere. We're
following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize
our legal risk.
We'll see what happens.
Jonathan
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
| |
Jonathan Knudsen:
> Basically we need to change the title in order to avoid marketplace
> confusion--it needs to be very clear that our product is not produced
> or supported by LEGO. We'll also have a prominent disclaimer inside
> somewhere. We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our
> legal risk.
>
> We'll see what happens.
How about a "name the book" contest?
- Learning NQC, pbFORTH, and legOS
- Mastering Plastic Binding Brick Robots with Lots of Neat Moving Parts
- RCX Programming in a Nutshell
- RCX Hacking: The Definitive Guide
- Essential Guide to LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Hacking with Third-Party Software
- Programming LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Robots using Unofficial Software
- LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Annoyances
:*)
--Todd
|
|
| |
Jonathan Knudsen <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> The whole thing is kind of silly. LEGO felt that we shouldn't be allowed to
> publish a book without paying them a license fee. We didn't think we needed
> to pay a license fee to write about their product; after all, we don't do
> that for anyone else, like Sun, or Microsoft.
The silly part is that this book is basically free advertising and free
excitement about their product. It's easily going to making them more money
_without_ a license fee.
> Basically we need to change the title in order to avoid marketplace
> confusion--it needs to be very clear that our product is not produced or
> supported by LEGO. We'll also have a prominent disclaimer inside somewhere.
> We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our legal risk.
How about "Undocumented LEGO Mindstorms" or somesuch?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> Jonathan Knudsen:
> > Basically we need to change the title in order to avoid marketplace
> > confusion--it needs to be very clear that our product is not produced
> > or supported by LEGO. We'll also have a prominent disclaimer inside
> > somewhere. We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our
> > legal risk.
> >
> > We'll see what happens.
>
> How about a "name the book" contest?
I say use the situation to your advantage and make it sound rebellious:
- Unauthorized Secrets of RCX Programming
- The Unofficial, Unauthorized Guide to LEGO® MINDSTORMS™
- The Black Book of RCX Voodoo (okay, this one is a little over the top)
- Everything LEGO® Doesn't Want You To Know About LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ (a bit too
long)
Hehehe...
|
|
| |
At 03:20 AM 9/4/99 GMT, Matthew Miller wrote:
> [...]
> How about "Undocumented LEGO Mindstorms" or somesuch?
We considered this--Unauthorized, or Unofficial. It
conveyed the meaning pretty well, but at the
same time we felt that "Unauthorized" had a
connotation that the information might not
be particularly accurate, which it is. It's really
out of my hands, anyhow. The eventual title
is almost as much of a mystery to me as it is to you!
It doesn't much matter, I'm just thrilled the
book is finally done and will be out soon.
On a side note, I'm also thrilled that it looks
like the book won't be obseleted right away
by RIS 1.5.
Jonathan
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman writes:
> How about a "name the book" contest?
Programming Plastic Brick Robots
--
-russ nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
> Jonathan Knudsen:
> > Basically we need to change the title in order to avoid marketplace
> > confusion--it needs to be very clear that our product is not produced
> > or supported by LEGO. We'll also have a prominent disclaimer inside
> > somewhere. We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our
> > legal risk.
> >
> > We'll see what happens.
>
> How about a "name the book" contest?
>
> - Learning NQC, pbFORTH, and legOS
> - Mastering Plastic Binding Brick Robots with Lots of Neat Moving Parts
> - RCX Programming in a Nutshell
> - RCX Hacking: The Definitive Guide
> - Essential Guide to LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Hacking with Third-Party Software
> - Programming LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Robots using Unofficial Software
> - LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Annoyances
>
> :*)
>
> --Todd
Ooo, I can't resist this.. love your last one, Todd. It would have the
Energizer
Bunny on the cover, right?.. oh no, then there'd be trouble with another
company.
ok, how 'bout
- "These ARE the 'droids You're Looking For."
- Programming the Poor-man's HAL 9000 for Dummies
- Automate Your Life for Under $200
- Learn to Build a Time Machine in 24 Hours
- Beyond NEXUS 6
- I Think, Therefore iToy: the Grownups' Guide to Making Friends
- Toy Programming for the Rest of Us (20, 30, 40, and 50 - somethings)
- PLAY: a 12 step program
Uhp, looks like there could be trouble again with book publishers, or Apple, or
some movie makers.. just can't win.
-Suz.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jonathan Knudsen writes:
> The whole thing is kind of silly. LEGO felt that
> we shouldn't be allowed to publish a book without
> paying them a license fee. We didn't think we
> needed to pay a license fee to write about their
> product; after all, we don't do that for anyone
> else, like Sun, or Microsoft.
If there was any doubt in anyone's mind that TLG doesn't "get it", this should
pretty firmly put it to bed.
TLG should be falling all over themselves to give technical information to make
sure the book is correct, and that it encourages people to buy more stuff.
Sigh.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Todd Lehman writes:
> > How about a "name the book" contest?
>
> Programming Plastic Brick Robots
How about 'Literature on Electronic Gadget Operation - Master Invention of
Navigating, Dazzling, Supercharged, Thinking, Outstanding Robotic Miniature
Systems'?
Jacob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
> Jonathan Knudsen:
> > [...] We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our
> > legal risk.
> >
> > We'll see what happens.
>
> How about a "name the book" contest?
>
> - Learning NQC, pbFORTH, and legOS
> - Mastering Plastic Binding Brick Robots with Lots of Neat Moving Parts
> - RCX Programming in a Nutshell
> - RCX Hacking: The Definitive Guide
> - Essential Guide to LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Hacking with Third-Party Software
> - Programming LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Robots using Unofficial Software
> - LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Annoyances
>
> :*)
>
> --Todd
... and we definitely need an appendix (or second tome, rather):
Lawyer's EGOtiasis *) :
A treatise on etiology, epidemiology, symptomology, dia- and prognosis of an
infectious social disease.
(...to which you shouldn't apply acronymization!!! ;-)
Greetings,
Martin E.
*) eh-goh-TEE-ah-sis
|
|
| |
Jacob Schultz <anne.jacob@get2net.dk> wrote:
> How about 'Literature on Electronic Gadget Operation - Master Invention of
> Navigating, Dazzling, Supercharged, Thinking, Outstanding Robotic Miniature
> Systems'?
heh. I see your point :-)
|
|
| |
lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> Jonathan Knudsen:
> > Basically we need to change the title in order to avoid marketplace
> > confusion--it needs to be very clear that our product is not produced
> > or supported by LEGO. We'll also have a prominent disclaimer inside
> > somewhere. We're following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize our
> > legal risk.
> >
> > We'll see what happens.
>
> How about a "name the book" contest?
>
> - Learning NQC, pbFORTH, and legOS
> - Mastering Plastic Binding Brick Robots with Lots of Neat Moving Parts
> - RCX Programming in a Nutshell
> - RCX Hacking: The Definitive Guide
> - Essential Guide to LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Hacking with Third-Party Software
> - Programming LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Robots using Unofficial Software
> - LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ Annoyances
- Legal Entanglements Go On
> :*)
jack
j-perdue@tamu.edu
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Jonathan Knudsen writes:
> At 08:59 PM 9/3/99 GMT, you wrote:
> > Jonathan Knudsen <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> > > Finally, the title will probably change, to avoid
> > > legal trouble with you-know-who.
> >
> > Really? Lawyers are silly. What possible problem could there be?
>
> The whole thing is kind of silly. LEGO felt that
> we shouldn't be allowed to publish a book without
> paying them a license fee. We didn't think we
> needed to pay a license fee to write about their
> product; after all, we don't do that for anyone
> else, like Sun, or Microsoft.
>
> Basically we need to change the title in
> order to avoid marketplace confusion--it needs
> to be very clear that our product is not produced
> or supported by LEGO. We'll also have
> a prominent disclaimer inside somewhere. We're
> following our lawyers' suggestions to minimize
> our legal risk.
>
> We'll see what happens.
>
> Jonathan
What happened (apparently) is that LEGO now has their cake and eats it too. This
makes me sick.
I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory' Books about
LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and Dave's NQC book
with obvious links to Amazon.com for online purchasing. LEGO has shamelessly
added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
"cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15% taken from
every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
If TLC is seriously sponging money through the needs of the adult robotics
community (due to lacking in their own provisions and foresight), then I have
only one word for it. Sleazy!
See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main page.
Anyone know how long it has been there?
-Suz.
Boy, it's a good thing LUGNET rules make me watch my language because right now
my ire is steaming full blast.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> [...]
> See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main
> page.
If your browser doesn't support JavaScript (Lynx, W3M, etc.) or if you're
running a browser that does, but you have it disabled, you won't be able to
load the page. But if you still want to view the page, here's the page's
actual URL (double-checked with Lynx and with NN minus JS):
http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp
But for the full "WTF?" effect, simply click there from the homepage. LUGNET
and other in-the-AFOL-community webpages have Amazon.com associates links for
the same two books, but it's shocking to see TLC itself do this, especially
after it made the stink with O'Reilly last summer. This has got to be the
most bizarrely unexpected thing I've seen on an official LEGO site yet! :)
--Todd
|
|
| |
In article <Fsnzz7.Mrp@lugnet.com>, "Suzanne D. Rich"
<suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> What happened (apparently) is that LEGO now has their cake and eats it
> too. This
> makes me sick.
I assume Jonathan (and ORA) went through the same discussions my
publisher did with TLG regarding using "Mindstorms" in a book title.
Lego had no problem at all with people writing books...in fact I've
gotten a lot of encouraging feedback from people within TLG that
wholeheartedly endorse these efforts.
However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high
value, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of
their brand (i.e. licensing fees).
My impression was TLG was very happy with the fact that there were books
dealing with Lego sets and that obviously it should be clear from the
book's title *which* lego set it being discussed. Per their
recommendation, my book carries a label stating that it applies to the
Robotics Invention System 1.0 and 1.5 (so as to eliminate confusion
about the other Mindstorms sets).
At this point, both books are out, and TLG feels that the books may add
to the "Mindstorms" experience, thus they point to the books from their
web site. As an author, I find this helpful...it means more people may
read my book and enjoy it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I find it perfectly reasonable that they
are willing to point interested users to the books, but at the same time
don't want their name on them.
>
> I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory'
> Books about
> LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and Dave's
> NQC book
> with obvious links to Amazon.com for online purchasing. LEGO has
> shamelessly
> added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
> "cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15%
> taken from
> every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
>
> If TLC is seriously sponging money through the needs of the adult
> robotics
> community (due to lacking in their own provisions and foresight), then I
> have
> only one word for it. Sleazy!
Personally, I'd much rather have them link from their site to the
publishers' sites for the books - in general these provide much better
information about the books and allow potential readers to make a more
informed decision.
However, linking to amazon.com and getting the associated revenue is
pretty common practice. I don't believe it takes any money from
buyers...the money comes from amazon.com's margins.
I didn't realize it was 15%...at that rate, TLG makes more off each sale
than I do! Perhaps I need to speak with them about a referral fee for
anyone who bought a Mindstorms set because of NQC :)
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
[snip]
> LEGO has shamelessly
> added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
> "cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15% taken from
> every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
Could you please explain further? What is an "associate code" and how does it work?
/Eric McC/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.robotics, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > [...]
> > See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main
> > page.
>
> ..., here's the page's
> actual URL (double-checked with Lynx and with NN minus JS):
>
> http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp
>
> But for the full "WTF?" effect, simply click there from the homepage. LUGNET
> and other in-the-AFOL-community webpages have Amazon.com associates links for
> the same two books, but it's shocking to see TLC itself do this, especially
> after it made the stink with O'Reilly last summer. This has got to be the
> most bizarrely unexpected thing I've seen on an official LEGO site yet! :)
>
> --Todd
I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?
Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referal fee is
given? So I guess I don't see the big deal about that. I'd appreciate it if
someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.
What I thought was REALLY funny though was the Legal Notice at the bottom of
the page. Especially the line: "Your linking to any other off-site pages or
other sites is at your own risk." It makes it sound like the only place on
the web that you are safe is on LEGO's own web pages! Could you imagine if
everyone started putting legal disclaimers on every link off their site?
(Hey, Todd, maybe you should add a legal disclaimer to the various links from
LUGNET to certain 'other' websites! :-)
Finally, what does "WTF?" mean? What's a "WTF" effect?
--
David Schilling
|
|
| |
"Dave Baum" <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-FAB69A.18020807042000@lugnet.com...
> At this point, both books are out, and TLG feels that the books may add
> to the "Mindstorms" experience, thus they point to the books from their
> web site. As an author, I find this helpful...it means more people may
> read my book and enjoy it.
Get both books, cheaper, from Varisty Books:
http://www.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=11225
-Rob.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, David Schilling writes:
> I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
> the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?
> Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referal fee is
> given? So I guess I don't see the big deal about that. I'd appreciate it
> if someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.
I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.
It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage of
books written by people in the AFOL community that support it. Maybe they'll
give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.
What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes left
open by TLC. Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to fill
themselves. :) See the irony? I'm not sure whether to chuckle in admiration
from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach from
what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.
> [...]
> Finally, what does "WTF?" mean? What's a "WTF" effect?
It's an old USENET/netnews word to avoid profanity...imagine incredible
surprise or confusion, and that's what it is.
--Todd
|
|
| |
> So I guess I don't see the big deal about that. I'd appreciate it if
> someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.
I suppose after paying $200 for a LEGO set that most people would be
unhappy that LEGO got yet more money after buying a book from a third party
that filled gaps in their original product.
--Sean
|
|
| |
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
> brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
> wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
> compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high value,
> it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of their
> brand (i.e. licensing fees).
However, it seems extremely unreasonable in the case of books about a
product. In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, this use of trademarks seems
100% within the precedent set for fair use: it's impossible to describe
_without_ using the trademark.
The classic example is: if writing about the Boston Marathon (a trademark of
the Boston Athletic Association), you don't have to call it "that 42.2k race
they have in Boston every year" -- you can actually call it "the Boston
Marathon". The same applies to a book specifically about Lego Mindstorms --
you don't have to call it a book about "the robotic construction set from
the famous maker of interlocking plastic building blocks".
I can understand why O'Reilly wouldn't want to go to court over this, but
I'm pretty sure that if it came to that, TLC wouldn't have much to stand on.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that if it came to that, TLC wouldn't have much to stand on.
Not to mention, of course, the whole thing where these books are nothing but
beneficial to Lego, and much more beneficial if they actually use their name
in the title.
(To make another analogy: a book called "How to use Linux" is nice for Red
Hat; a book called "How to use Red Hat Linux" is much better. And I'm pretty
sure that no one is confused into thinking that such books are official --
especially if they happen to be called something like "The Unofficial Guide
to Red Hat Linux".)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, David Schilling writes:
[...]
> I don't really understand how the associates stuff works: if no one collects
> the referal fee, doesn't Amazon just keep it as extra profit for themselves?
From what I understand, Amazon makes no profit when a book is 30% off list and
then grants a 15% referral fee.[1] The 15% is a maximum. A visitor to their
site would need to buy directly through that link and the book must be on
discount of 15-30%(?)I don't remember the numbers. often it's 5% or zero
referal.
> Certainly the authors don't collect a smaller royalty if a referral fee is
> given?
No, I don't think it affects the publisher or author.[2] I guess if LEGO is
helping sell more copies of Dave's and Jonathan's books then that makes me
happy. It is a Good Thing. And it's good for all the users that are helped. It
wasn't seeing their books on the site that disturbed me.
> So I guess I don't see the big deal about that. I'd appreciate it if
> someone could explain why this is a Bad Thing.
I did not say that LEGO was doing a Bad Thing. But I think in this case they are
acting in an unprofessional manner. For such a large company, who is attempting
to appear as strong and worldly, to scrape nickles off books written by others
about their product (ironically in the gaps left by them) looks (to me) sad and
cheap.
Basically: TLC would have looked more respectful (to me) if they, being
originator of the product, were to have linked to the authors' sites or their
publishers' sites. Instead, the way TLC mentions the books seems cold and less
helpful than it could be.
I could see collecting profit from Amazon.com as reasonable if TLC were putting
the funds toward something kind and related. like, I don't know.. donating more
copies of the books to high schools or libraries or something.. but I can find
no evidence of that being the case.
I feel that TLC owes those two authors and their publishers a great thanks, and
I just don't see it coming from TLC. I am personally disapointed.
But I'm sorry that my post here seemed so curious to readers. :-/
LEGO's current "outsider book-on-official site" relationship is understandable
from a certain view out LEGO's windows now, But I wish they had been on the
sidewalk with everyone last fall. I believe there were things they could have
done from the get-go. But that being history, I should be quiet, calm down, and
let what happens happen.
-Suz
[1]
Last I heard, Amazon.com had yet to make a profit as a whole company. Amazon
benefits from associates by exposure and specialty sub-sites.
[2]
I don't know about exact effects, like those on distributors... I forget who
even owns INGRAM now... certainly it hurts retail stores, local bookshops and
the like. The print publishing industry as a whole is changing due to the
internet's growing use -- I don't know how that will affect royalties in future.
Usually publishing is so slow to change -- now they have to be quick on their
toes. but that's another matter.
|
|
| |
In article <Fso7Gt.ILF@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
wrote:
> I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.
>
> It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage of
> books written by people in the AFOL community that support it. Maybe they'll
> give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.
>
> What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes left
> open by TLC. Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to fill
> themselves. :) See the irony? I'm not sure whether to chuckle in admiration
> from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach from
> what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.
I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this. I assume TLC
decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
TLC left some holes with Mindstorms, and for the last 18 months I've
been filling a couple of them (NQC and a book). When the Mindstorms
site started accepting NQC programs, people generally looked at this as
a positive step from TLC. I think their acknowledgments of the books -
including a link on their web site - is also a positive step.
Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
that is upsetting? To be honest, I suspect NQC's existence created more
net profit for TLC than the amazon.com link for my book will. I'm
perfectly happy to let them derrive some profit from my efforts. After
all, NQC and the book have brought me plenty of rewards, and neither of
those efforts would've been possible without Mindstorms. Personally,
I'm very content in this sort of half-acknowledged symbiotic
relationship with TLC. I can't speak for Jonathan, but I hope nobody
gets the impression that I (as an AFOL) am getting a bad deal here.
Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
similar links on other AFOL sites? Although I can see where this would
be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego. Its just
free market operating with respect to referrals. If other sites
(LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
other ways to support them.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Dave Baum writes:
> I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this. I assume TLC
> decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
> they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
That's certainly their choice. I just hope they realize it's sending a mixed
message. If you don't know how to recognize an Amazon.com associate ID when
you see one, it looks as though TLC is finally (yay) supporting these two
wonderful books, when in fact the opposite is true.
> [...]
> Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
> that is upsetting? [...]
IMHO, TLC is misleading people into believing that they support the books --
which they might FAIK, who knows -- but there's clearly mixed signals. If
they weren't receiving a kickback, then it would be clear that they
unconditionaly supported the books.
I'm happy to TLC support of AFOLs, but this still leaves me nervous and
skeptical. :)
> Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
> similar links on other AFOL sites?
I'd feel the same uncomfortable feeling even if there weren't the same types
of links on any non-TLC sites.
> Although I can see where this would
> be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.
I'm not sure 'upset' is the right word. Disappointed and uncomfortable are
closer to the right word. LEGO is sending the wrong message to people who
stop by.
--Todd
> Its just free market operating with respect to referrals. If other sites
> (LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
> other ways to support them.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Miller writes:
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> > they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> > their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
>
> I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
> it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
> as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.
Yeah! -- Well said!
Here's what was going through my mind (and mouth :) when Suzanne showed me
the page[1] earlier today:
Suz: "Check this out...you're gonna love this..." (sarcasm)
Todd: (seeing page on screen) "Ahh, [expletive deleted] cool -- [expletive
deleted] COOL! LEGO is FINALLY supporting the AFOL books! WOW. Well I'll
be darned...I -never- thought they would do that."
Suz: "Now look at the link."
Todd: (squiting to see the full URL) "What?! Is that...?! No, it's not..."
Suz: "Yeah, look again. And I double checked it. It's the same format as
all the other Amazon associate links."
Todd: "Nooowww....oh my god. It IS! No [expletive deleted] way. No way.
I thought you were joking. Oh my gawd. No. They didn't. Is that real?
It IS. No way. No [expletive deleted] way. Oh my gawd, that's SOOO SOOO
tacky. I can't believe they did that. Do they know they did that? Oh man,
that's SO bad looking. It's so misleading."
Complete and utter shock, in other words. :)
--Todd
[1] http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> Suz: "Yeah, look again. And I double checked it. It's the same format as
> all the other Amazon associate links."
Y'know, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if if it turns out that the Amazon
referrals aren't going to TLC at all, but rather to an employee of whatever
web firm they contract out to.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Miller writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > Suz: "Yeah, look again. And I double checked it. It's the same format as
> > all the other Amazon associate links."
>
> Y'know, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if if it turns out that the Amazon
> referrals aren't going to TLC at all, but rather to an employee of whatever
> web firm they contract out to.
We were wondering that too. It wouldn't surpise me too much if "management"
there was oblivious to the fact. I guess if the URL changes anytime soon...
(smile)
--Todd
|
|
| |
Suz wrote:
> I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory' Books about
> LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and Dave's NQC book
> with obvious links to Amazon.com for online purchasing. LEGO has shamelessly
> added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
> "cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15% taken from
> every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
>
> If TLC is seriously sponging money through the needs of the adult robotics
> community (due to lacking in their own provisions and foresight), then I have
> only one word for it. Sleazy!
>
> See for yourselves. The link is straight off the legomindstorms.com main page.
> Anyone know how long it has been there?
Ummm, obviously that page isn't visited much by LugNuts. I found it by
accident about a month ago after trying to log onto the forums after
someone emailed me that they had rendered my compressor in MLCad.
The hoops I had to go through to get looged in were astounding, and it still
only works every other day. The quality of the discussions in the forums
are what you would expect of 13 year olds suckered onto the website by the
garish graphics and almost complete lack of content....
If anyone at TLG reads this (and I KNOW you do) please use the opportunity
provided by your recent web design job posting to hire people that can
provide useful content for low-bandwidth Internet connections. Lose the
stupid graphics that waste time and resources and spend more on content.
Actually, never mind. I'll stick to this community.
I guess I haven't said thanks to Suzanne and Todd lately for LUGNET, so
thanks!!!
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbFORTH>
--------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In article <slrn8et1h9.qk9.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org
wrote:
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> > they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> > their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
>
> I agree with Suzanne -- it looks shoddy and unprofessional. I don't think
> it's immoral or anything, but it puts them on the same psychological level
> as some random person with a geocities page full of banner ads.
I also agree about how it looks...which is basically why I don't use an
associate link on the NQC site (1).
Dave
(1) Acutally, I even debated about putting anything at all on the NQC
site about my book.
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
In article <slrn8esvg9.qk9.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org
wrote:
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> > However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
> > brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
> > wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
> > compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high
> > value,
> > it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of their
> > brand (i.e. licensing fees).
>
>
> However, it seems extremely unreasonable in the case of books about a
> product. In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, this use of trademarks seems
> 100% within the precedent set for fair use: it's impossible to describe
> _without_ using the trademark.
There's tons of precedent on using trademarked names in titles of books.
I don't believe my publisher was ever seriously concerned about losing a
court case. But they didn't want to bother going to court, and there's
a lot of value in a good faith effort such as respecting their wishes
and putting an "unofficial" stamp on the book.
Bear in mind that TLC is sort of an "old" company that's just coming
into the "new" market. They're used to customers and competitors. Not
collaborators and side industries.
I'm not saying they shouldn't change...they should. However, big
companies don't turn on a dime, so I have to keep tempering my
expectations.
We have seen a lot of progress (at least in Mindstorms)....consider the
fact that they released pre-alpha firmware for RCX 2.0 along with
complete documentation of the bytecodes. That must've been a hard sell
to management.
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
I like the mindstorms site.If this small amount of cash help further
develop/justify it power to them. I'd rather the 15% went to TLC rather than
AMAZON, as I've found them to be a little shoddy in the past. It is good
that TLC is willing to recognise the work others are doing, rather than just
copying Dave et al. & produce a equivalent text for much more $$.
Scott A
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-344EC6.19542307042000@lugnet.com...
> In article <Fso7Gt.ILF@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I just think it's incredibly ironic, if not a bizarre turn of events.
> >
> > It's surprising to see TLC jumping on the opportunity to take advantage • of
> > books written by people in the AFOL community that support it. Maybe • they'll
> > give a portion of the fees back to the authors, that would be nice.
> >
> > What's particularly ironic about it, IMHO, is that the books fill holes • left
> > open by TLC. Now they come in and profit from the holes they forgot to • fill
> > themselves. :) See the irony? I'm not sure whether to chuckle in • admiration
> > from a capitalist market standpoint or whether to have a sore stomach • from
> > what it might mean about how TLC views AFOLs.
>
>
> I hope people don't get too worked up about all of this. I assume TLC
> decided to put links on their site, then someone had the idea that if
> they used an associate link, they'd get a little extra income. From
> their perspective, why not take advantage of a little free money?
>
> TLC left some holes with Mindstorms, and for the last 18 months I've
> been filling a couple of them (NQC and a book). When the Mindstorms
> site started accepting NQC programs, people generally looked at this as
> a positive step from TLC. I think their acknowledgments of the books -
> including a link on their web site - is also a positive step.
>
> Is it just the fact that they are profitting from AFOL contributions
> that is upsetting? To be honest, I suspect NQC's existence created more
> net profit for TLC than the amazon.com link for my book will. I'm
> perfectly happy to let them derrive some profit from my efforts. After
> all, NQC and the book have brought me plenty of rewards, and neither of
> those efforts would've been possible without Mindstorms. Personally,
> I'm very content in this sort of half-acknowledged symbiotic
> relationship with TLC. I can't speak for Jonathan, but I hope nobody
> gets the impression that I (as an AFOL) am getting a bad deal here.
>
> Is there a concern that the lego links will reduce the hits through
> similar links on other AFOL sites? Although I can see where this would
> be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego. Its just
> free market operating with respect to referrals. If other sites
> (LUGNET, etc) were depending on such money, then we will need to find
> other ways to support them.
>
> Dave Baum
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
* Mika Tuupola <tuupola@appelsiini.net> [000408 09:44]:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, David Schilling wrote:
> > "Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites is at your
> > own risk."
> This is what Internet _is_ today. Even though this might
> seem quite amusing, especially big companies just have to
> cover their back. There allways are people who are trying
> to sue (for reasons which are not undertandable to a netizen,
> but lawyer-type-of-human can do a case out of it) in
> hope to get some money.
For a differing viewpoint, check out http://www.cluetrain.com/
Later,
Blake.
--
9:53am up 10 days, 10:27, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
|
|
| |
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, David Schilling wrote:
> What I thought was REALLY funny though was the Legal Notice at the bottom of
> the page. Especially the line: "Your linking to any other off-site pages or
> other sites is at your own risk." It makes it sound like the only place on
> the web that you are safe is on LEGO's own web pages! Could you imagine if
> everyone started putting legal disclaimers on every link off their site?
This is what Internet _is_ today. Even though this might
seem quite amusing, especially big companies just have to
cover their back. There allways are people who are trying
to sue (for reasons which are not undertandable to a netizen,
but lawyer-type-of-human can do a case out of it) in
hope to get some money.
--
Mika Tuupola http://www.appelsiini.net/~tuupola/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Although I can see where this would
> > be disconcerting, its hardly a reason to get upset with Lego.
>
> I'm not sure 'upset' is the right word. Disappointed and uncomfortable are
> closer to the right word. LEGO is sending the wrong message to people who
> stop by.
(The above is from April.)
I just stumbled across this at the official LEGO Mindstorms website...
http://lego4.legomindstorms.com/webx?14@119.40wPawM8ax6^33@.ee6e227/2
It's worth adding a link to it just for posterity since it refers to
specific articles on this thread by their URLs.
Anyway, I'm not sure who "little horn" is, but he speaks with the
defensiveness of someone who works for LEGO. I don't get the impression
that he "gets it" (i.e., why the coat-tailing sends the wrong message).
http://www.legomindstorms.com/home/books/index.asp
I can't help but notice the notice at the bottom of that page --
"...These links are provided for your convenience only..."
What they really mean is something else, but the double-meaning is humorous.
:)
Oh well. At least they're linking to the books, which helps support the
community.
--Todd
|
|
 |
Subject:
|
Stereo Vision
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:05:13 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Laurentino Martins <LMARTINS@antispamMARKTEST.PT>
|
Viewed:
|
1589 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi
As you may know my current project has everything to do with image recognition.
I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that many of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects can be overcome it I have stereo vision!
Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I can place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically the image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the images and find the differences between them.
Any thoughts about that?
Laurentino Martins
[ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
[ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: Stereo Vision
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:30:56 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Marco C. <marco@soporcel=AvoidSpam=.pt>
|
Viewed:
|
1525 times
|
| |
|
|
Yup :)
I thought of, *after dealing with the mono vision*, going for a stereo
approach, because this is one way of dealing with distance measuring, or at
least, better object evaluation/recognition.
At first I thought of using two USB cams, but then, after thinking about
the technical problems dealing with two video sources, I thought of that
solution exactly. Using a kind of technic common to professional binocullars:
Left Right
: :
\:..\**/..:/
*\ :\/: /* 4 Mirrors
: :
|: :|
Camera
Well... in theory this works, but, in practice, I was expecting
difficulties when setting the angles of the mirrors correctly.
If more motor outputs were available, one could control the outside
mirrors, to deflect or inflect (just like we do with the eyes)
With angle-sensors attached, one could even do a crude distance measuring,
when trying to focus an individual object/point of reference.
Anyway, without the pair of motor/angle-sensor attached, it's still
possible to do crude distance measuring with the fixed angle.
Like this, we get better edge/object recognition
Oh well... when I have the time... but, anyway :) Laurentino, keep us up to
date with your project :)
At 11:05 10-08-2000 +0100, you wrote:
> Hi
> As you may know my current project has everything to do with image • recognition.
> I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that
many of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the
objects can be overcome it I have stereo vision!
> Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I
can place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically
the image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
> Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the • images and find the differences between them.
> Any thoughts about that?
> Laurentino Martins
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: Stereo Vision
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:36:29 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Marco C. <marco@soporcel.pt&NoMoreSpam&>
|
Viewed:
|
1475 times
|
| |
|
|
At 13:45 10-08-2000 +0200, you wrote:
> > If more motor outputs were available, one could control...
> LOL! I wonder when LEGO actually will put in more I/O in the RCX :)
> Keep up the good thinking and have a nice day!
I'm planning to add a RCX to my CyberMaster, hopefully, this Xmas.
I've done tests with MotorOutput->SensorInput direct connection and it
works, using the Off() and Float() commands to simulate the On/Off state.
Using a simple comms rotine, similar to the VLL code available already in
legOS and NQC source code, or similar to bar-code reader code, one can
devise a bidirectional serial comm with the CyberMaster<->RCX.
Advantages ? PC RF-comms and/or IR-comms with 4 sensors and 4 or even 5
outputs (a pair of each assigned to the comms, so only 4 from the 6 available)
I could save a RCX output, I dunno, by connecting like this:
CyberMaster_Input_1 <= Bumper1...
CyberMaster_Input_2 <= Bumper2...
CyberMaster_Output_A => LeftMoveMotor
CyberMaster_Output_B => RightMoveMotor (or something like that)
CyberMaster_Output_C =>-\
CyberMaster_Input_3 <=--|
RCX_Input_1 <=>---------/
RCX_Input_2 <= LeftEyeAngleSensor
RCX_Input_3 <= RightEyeAngleSensor
RCX_Output_A => LeftEyeAngleMotor
RCX_Output_B => RightEyeAngleMotor
RCX_Output_C => UpDownEyeAngleMotor
So, it's possible to have one pBrick do all the walking, and the other
pBrick obey cmds to move the "eyes" and even, with the possible 3rd output,
control the up/down movement of the eyes.
Or if considered a luxury the Independent Eye movement, the RCX would do
the "arm" controlling instead. ...or both, with a 2nd RCX, because the 1st
could pass along CyberMaster comands through IR messages to any other
possible RCX's we might want to add.
$$$ :)
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper
|
|
| |
in article 4.3.2.7.0.20000810105740.00b35ff0@mail.marktest.pt, Laurentino
Martins at lego-robotics@crynwr.com wrote on 8/10/00 3:05 AM:
> Hi
> As you may know my current project has everything to do with image
> recognition.
> I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that many
> of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects can be
> overcome it I have stereo vision!
> Then I figured that the only way to do that with just one camera was if I can
> place a set of mirrors in the front to the camera and split vertically the
> image in two, each set of mirrors giving an image a few centimeters apart.
> Then all I have to do is to compare the left and the right parts of the images
> and find the differences between them.
> Any thoughts about that?
Always! You can rely on me to have thoughts. No guarantees about the
usefulness of my thoughts, however. Use at your own risk.
You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
the camera to one side instead of in the middle.
. .
\ . \ .
\....\ .
\ . \ .
. .
##### <-- camera lens
Let the unmodified image fall on half of the lens, and cover up the other
half with the center mirror. You can move the outside mirror away from and
towards the middle to change the separation between your "eyes" to give you
better stereo separation.
If you motorize this and control it from your robot, you can compare the
scene at different settings and figure out the relative distance of the
various objects in the scene (assuming you can distinguish the objects with
your software).
>
> Laurentino Martins
>
> [ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
> [ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]
>
>
--
Doug Weathers, http://www.rdrop.com/~dougw
Portland, Oregon, USA
Don't spam me - I know how to use http://www.spamcop.net
"On a clear disk you can seek forever"
|
|
| |
At 23:38 10-08-2000 GMT, Doug Weathers wrote:
> in article 4.3.2.7.0.20000810105740.00b35ff0@mail.marktest.pt, Laurentino
> Martins at lego-robotics@crynwr.com wrote on 8/10/00 3:05 AM:
> > I was reading one tread in this newsgroup and suddenly it struck me that • many
> > of the problems I currently have in finding the contours of the objects • can be
> > overcome it I have stereo vision!
> > Any thoughts about that?
> You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
> the camera to one side instead of in the middle.
> . .
> \ . \ .
> \....\ .
> \ . \ .
> . .
> ##### <-- camera lens
> Let the unmodified image fall on half of the lens, and cover up the other
> half with the center mirror. You can move the outside mirror away from and
> towards the middle to change the separation between your "eyes" to give you
> better stereo separation.
> If you motorize this and control it from your robot, you can compare the
> scene at different settings and figure out the relative distance of the
> various objects in the scene (assuming you can distinguish the objects with
> your software).
Cool :) that might work too, and save about the other half of material to
be used (+2 mirrors, +1 motor, +1 angle-sensor).
er... I feel like having "my" solution simply slashed in the middle ;) eheheh
This is really all about having an horizontal periscope. In the first case
two, in this case, only one. If it proves a workable solution, it's, of
course, a cheaper solution (and that's *always* welcome ;)
I'm curious about the effect of having a one moving and one fixed "eye".
Talking about mirrors, one of my recent experiment, was putting a Camcorder
in vertical posicion, and on the top, having a 45º mirror (taken from a
toy-periscope) with 360º rotation freedom controlled by my CyberMaster. It
was kewl. Less hassle with moving parts (mirror's lighter than the cam ;)
no cable problems, etc...
This mirror controlling stuff is something I'll get back to, in the future,
cause it consumes much less battery, and the mechanics tend to become
simpler, because of smaller and lighter object to control (the mirror).
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: Stereo Vision
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:04:42 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Laurentino Martins <LMARTINS@MARKTEST.PTavoidspam>
|
Viewed:
|
1525 times
|
| |
|
|
This approach has several problems.
One is that the left image will show you smaller objects than the right, because the light travels a greater distance.
The second is that precision is very important and the mirrors must be fixed otherwise will make the image tremble a lot.
If you want to subtract two almost identical images to see the edges like I want to, one pixel of unalignment is too much.
Sorry the english
At 00:38 11-08-2000 Friday, Doug Weathers wrote:
> You might be able to save yourself some trouble with mirrors if you mount
> the camera to one side instead of in the middle.
>
> . .
> \ . \ .
> \....\ .
> \ . \ .
> . .
> ##### <-- camera lens
Laurentino Martins
[ mailto:lau@netcabo.pt ]
[ http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/ ]
|
|
| |
Check this out ;)
Recognizing Three-Dimensional Objects by Comparing Two-Dimensional Images.
Daniel P. Huttenlocher, Liana M. Lorigo. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition. June 1996, San Francisco, CA, USA
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/liana/cvpr-2col.ps.gz
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper
|
|
|
