CompuServe Messages

Paul – Most of your comments make sense. The last part about condemnation has to do with what appears to be your appraisal of the situation. I don't think that the font situation you speak of and this is really related, but I follow your point. In order for this to be intellectual property one would have to assume that it had never been done before. Which is not the case. Your font designs for instance were of a new particular design, correct. Because other people have done fonts down through the ages. Rachel has her mesh design and I have my own. Font changes can be very subtle, I don't know about your font designs, but my people would not be mistaken for hers. As for going public, all I mentioned originally is that I had written an article about her people. Then Gus and then you made comments about it. To which I responded. And they Rachel with both guns. To which I responded. I would have preferred to leave it alone, but with Rachels attitude it had to come to a head sooner or later. You and Gus seem to think there has been an impropriety. Your points are well taken, but I do not know how valid. I will have to check. Intellectual property is a complex issue because most innovation builds on something that has been done in the past. There are few really new ideas under the sun, just new ways of doing things. Meshes are not new, people meshes are not new, people with clothes are not new, people used in architecture are not new, people in animations are not new and on it goes. Her particular designs are distinctive much like your fonts, as are mine. Would a reasonable and prudent man ascertain that they was enough similarity between your fonts and someone elses as to be an infringement on the original. They stole your fonts, I have not stolen anything but have created my own. Therein lies the difference. Thanks for your thoughts. -JE