The problem with Alan Hyatt

  • Thread starter Thread starter ozraves
  • Start date Start date
I've never cared for folks who will sell something on false pretenses. I wasn't involved with the actual sale of the Ted Fletcher name, etc. but I imagine it was fueled by Ted Fletcher needing money for one reason or another.
PMI didn't buy all of the intellectual properties, including design, name, artwork, etc. so that Ted Fletcher could turn around and go right back into business as a competitor. That is the reason for buying everything including the name. I realize it's a little weird to be able to sell the rights to your own name, but it is legal to do and it is illegal to use you name on products after you've done it. It was Ted Fletcher's decision to sell his name and designs. It's not right for him to use them any more.

My $.02
 
Richard Monroe said:
I also think that regardless of what documents have been signed, Alan will fail to prevent Ted Fletcher from using his own name on audio products. What about "the designer formerly known as Ted Fletcher"?
Click to expand...

Heh...

Well, if "Ted Fletcher" is a registered trademark and Alan owns it, then Alan might (and should) prevent Ted Fletcher from using his own name. That would suck for ted, of course.

However, Alan DOES own the Ted Fletcher signature as a trademark. The question is if it's possible to change that signature so that it no longer breaks the trademark. Laws differ in different countries. In Sweden, changing is to it looks different, even though it still sais Ted Fletcher, would be enough. Or changing it to say "T Fletcher" or something.

I also think Alan will fail, and I think he SHOULD fail, if he tries to keep Ted Fletcher from designing and manufacturing products. I also think Ted Fletcher should stop manufacturing and selling the products that are joemeek "copies", that is all his products except the Edward.
 
"...However, Alan DOES own the Ted Fletcher signature ..."



So, Ted must pay royalty to Alan everytime he signs his name.
Alan is brilliant! Think how many checks, bills etc. that Ted signs everyday. Allan will be rich off one guy!!!
 
Oz - I'm curious to know why you now feel the need to bring all of this out in public. You have previously stated numerous times to keep these kinds of discussions private and between the affected parties. Why the sudden about face?
 
regebro said:
Heh...

Well, if "Ted Fletcher" is a registered trademark and Alan owns it, then Alan might (and should) prevent Ted Fletcher from using his own name. That would suck for ted, of course.

However, Alan DOES own the Ted Fletcher signature as a trademark. The question is if it's possible to change that signature so that it no longer breaks the trademark. Laws differ in different countries. In Sweden, changing is to it looks different, even though it still sais Ted Fletcher, would be enough. Or changing it to say "T Fletcher" or something.

I also think Alan will fail, and I think he SHOULD fail, if he tries to keep Ted Fletcher from designing and manufacturing products. I also think Ted Fletcher should stop manufacturing and selling the products that are joemeek "copies", that is all his products except the Edward.
Click to expand...

Hi

Much the same happened in 1975 when Rupert Neve left the company he formed in 1966 and was told, in a contract, not to build a similar product nor use his name for ten years.

So he formed a company called Nevenco making small broadcast consoles and was chastised by the board of the new holding company.

So he went on and made another console... similar to the original suitcase consoles, under another "non-Neve" name. It will come to me later, but I've temporally forgotten it.

All these legal deals are messy

Geoff
 
Well to be fair to both Alan and Steve (Ozraves),
it's understandable that a certain amount of emotional expression over this whole thing is present.

If you subtract all of that out, it comes down to whether PMI has sufficient legal support to enforce their position.

This is obviously not the province of non-qualified
legal "experts" :D like myself, or even the "best"
legal minds who don't have all the facts.

Oz, let this one go...

Chris
 
I've been spooking all over Harmony Central for 20 minutes, and I can't find this article/post. Can somebody give me a more specific link?-Richie
 
Alan Hyatt recently contacted me, personally, three times to help me sort out a studio issue related to use of my SP B1 mics. No professional's 100% in every business area, of course, but in my humble experience, very few reps have ever shown me the level of personal and professional concern that Alan has. And I believe his products offer excellent value for the money. Count me in as a full-fledged Studio Projects and Alan Hyatt supporter.

J.
 
Well................. After reading the Harmony Central thread, I will say that the "selective enforcement" issue sounds like it could be legitimate. But Hyatt's real beef should be with TF not Oz. And it sure could have been handled better.
 
freshmattyp said:
Oz - I'm curious to know why you now feel the need to bring all of this out in public. You have previously stated numerous times to keep these kinds of discussions private and between the affected parties. Why the sudden about face?
Click to expand...



I'm not Oz. But I'm guessing it's because that letter pissed him off.
 
Look, half of you guys are being idiots and missing the point. This isn't about who's right between Ted or Alan. It's about whether Alan has a right to go after the medias that Ted advertises on. And he doesn't. The station that airs a commercial or the magazine that prints an ad is not responsible or liable for the (supposed) wrongdoings of the advertiser. It's just ad space. However you look at it, it's imoral and wrong, and Alan's a big, fat, buffoon of an idiot for doing so. End of story.
 
chessrock said:
Look, half of you guys are being idiots and missing the point. This isn't about who's right between Ted or Alan. It's about whether Alan has a right to go after the medias that Ted advertises on. And he doesn't. The station that airs a commercial or the magazine that prints an ad is not responsible or liable for the (supposed) wrongdoings of the advertiser. It's just ad space. However you look at it, it's imoral and wrong, and Alan's a big, fat, buffoon of an idiot for doing so. End of story.
Click to expand...


Be nice.


Bowisc
 
chessrock said:
Look, half of you guys are being idiots and missing the point. This isn't about who's right between Ted or Alan. It's about whether Alan has a right to go after the medias that Ted advertises on. And he doesn't. The station that airs a commercial or the magazine that prints an ad is not responsible or liable for the (supposed) wrongdoings of the advertiser. It's just ad space. However you look at it, it's imoral and wrong, and Alan's a big, fat, buffoon of an idiot for doing so. End of story.
Click to expand...

Says you. :D

Seriuosly, though, it's a matter for the courts to determine, all buffonery aside. I don't see it as a 1st amendment issue, but rather holding an entity responsible for it's decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top