lol, that is just great... this guy simply has a few screws loose. I don`t think we should take it seriously. Infact, I believe the whole blog should be copied and lol`ed but he will probably sue us because we stole his copyrighted intellectual property... hahahaha.
Guy Who Wants To Sue Gamepark, Gph, Me & Ed
- Thread starter craigix
- Start date
DJWillis
Random GP32/GP2X/Wiz & Pandora Moocher
Ok, I bit the fruitcake's BLOG's, I fancy getting a word on so what the hell 
. Not read the other threads about it here on GP32x so I apologise if I am repeating stuff.
Not met that many of the suppliers and foaks in the GP2X/GP32 scenes then.
Reading those BLOG’s is interesting and I guess this is not the forum to pick holes in it all (ok, maybe it is) but I think there are more then a few bits that are a little insulting to a lot of people in both GP/GPH, suppliers and the community. GPH are far from perfect but his claims just don't even fit a basic timeline let alone stand up to publicly available counter evidence (admittedly circumstantial but a lot of that could be pulled together if needed).
Considering the GP32 was largely open through a series of GamePark sized mistakes and misunderstandings in the English<>Korean department long before 2004 (Let alone the December 2004 date those BLOG’s is so keen on) it makes it very easy to somewhat disprove claims and prove that just about anything GPH came up with could be the result of following publicly visible trends in there market and non tainted by an NDA. I wonder how well backed this guy thinks he is?
Considering my mid 2003 the UK community was large enough to sustain meet-ups, major European distributors where being courted (partly on the community ticket) and the GP32 was supporting a large open source community that GamePark where fully aware of. I find any claims about setting the companies (GP or GPH's) direction a little odd. Hell things we going well for the community stuff using GameParks own SDK well before 2003.
I remember distinctly talking to the then unified GP back then in 2003 about the GP32 console, open source and some of there worries and concerns and having very similar chats to some of the suppliers. GP(H) knew what they wanted to do with the GP2X/XGP long before they did it, the rift was over the ‘how’. GPH took the approach of doing it as cost efficiently as possible using off the shelf parts (why else do you think the GP2X is so close to the MMSP2 reference kit).
GP are going about it a different way but both are firmly going for the overseas ‘homebrew’ ticket that was getting GP32's out the door long before this person visited this mysterious 3rd unnamed company in Korea that is tied to GP(H).
I suspect that he really did present plans to this 3rd Korean firm and maybe an employee did jump to GP(H) but by that point the wheels would have been very much in motion. He also never states (rather skirts around it) that GP ever signed the NDA rather stating
I am not sure quite what legal circles this person moves in but with NDA’s it tends to be no pen mark no show, end of story. If GP did not sign the NDA then this is opportunistic mockery/madness and even with an NDA you would have to demonstrate that it was a valid trade secret I guess that GP(H) ‘stole’ and not an unenforceable collection of ideas that GP(H) already possessed though simple study of there own business and market.
Unless there are additional facts that we don’t know then it is just good for a giggle and comment and if there are then the bloke is a fool for airing it all in a public place and not getting good advice on how to persue the matter.
Talk about tainting your stance :lol:.
. Not read the other threads about it here on GP32x so I apologise if I am repeating stuff.Not met that many of the suppliers and foaks in the GP2X/GP32 scenes then
.Reading those BLOG’s is interesting and I guess this is not the forum to pick holes in it all (ok, maybe it is) but I think there are more then a few bits that are a little insulting to a lot of people in both GP/GPH, suppliers and the community. GPH are far from perfect but his claims just don't even fit a basic timeline let alone stand up to publicly available counter evidence (admittedly circumstantial but a lot of that could be pulled together if needed).
Considering the GP32 was largely open through a series of GamePark sized mistakes
and misunderstandings in the English<>Korean department long before 2004 (Let alone the December 2004 date those BLOG’s is so keen on) it makes it very easy to somewhat disprove claims and prove that just about anything GPH came up with could be the result of following publicly visible trends in there market and non tainted by an NDA. I wonder how well backed this guy thinks he is?Considering my mid 2003 the UK community was large enough to sustain meet-ups, major European distributors where being courted (partly on the community ticket) and the GP32 was supporting a large open source community that GamePark where fully aware of. I find any claims about setting the companies (GP or GPH's) direction a little odd. Hell things we going well for the community stuff using GameParks own SDK well before 2003.
I remember distinctly talking to the then unified GP back then in 2003 about the GP32 console, open source and some of there worries and concerns and having very similar chats to some of the suppliers. GP(H) knew what they wanted to do with the GP2X/XGP long before they did it, the rift was over the ‘how’. GPH took the approach of doing it as cost efficiently as possible using off the shelf parts (why else do you think the GP2X is so close to the MMSP2 reference kit).
GP are going about it a different way but both are firmly going for the overseas ‘homebrew’ ticket that was getting GP32's out the door long before this person visited this mysterious 3rd unnamed company in Korea that is tied to GP(H).
I suspect that he really did present plans to this 3rd Korean firm and maybe an employee did jump to GP(H) but by that point the wheels would have been very much in motion. He also never states (rather skirts around it) that GP ever signed the NDA rather stating
I am not sure quite what legal circles this person moves in but with NDA’s it tends to be no pen mark no show, end of story. If GP did not sign the NDA then this is opportunistic mockery/madness and even with an NDA you would have to demonstrate that it was a valid trade secret I guess that GP(H) ‘stole’ and not an unenforceable collection of ideas that GP(H) already possessed though simple study of there own business and market.
Unless there are additional facts that we don’t know then it is just good for a giggle and comment and if there are then the bloke is a fool for airing it all in a public place and not getting good advice on how to persue the matter.
Talk about tainting your stance :lol:.
What marketing plans??? GP2X marketing that I know of is a few magazine ads, some banners, a couple web sites, but mostly word of mouth and gp32 reputation. I hate to say it, but the marketing isn't exactly something to be proud of in any event, and it's certainly NOT what made it a commercial success. This guy must know some good crack dealers.
jmetal88
Erm.... Woohoo!
Lol, Gamepark never did any marketing at all, that I know of. It was all done by distributors.
craigix
Mega GP Mania
Did his design include a D-Pad?
(ducks for cover)
(ducks for cover)
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
Funnily enough, he claims that GP(H) stole... well, nothing at all, actually.
krosfyah
Syntax Error
Some of you are being incredibly immature.. but whatever.
craigix
Mega GP Mania
Subcan959, What did he say to you?
craigix posted on Sep 12 2006 at 11:53 PM said:
Thinking of GPH last year, the only thing they probably STOLE was the crappy stick cap.
Wait, maybe he invented the TFT Scanlines?
Or the falling-out headphone jacks?
That's the true reason for the MK2! GPH didn't want to make the unit better, they simply wanted to get rid of copyright infringements! Muaahahaaa
Last edited:
gaterooze
Coltrane Sundia
Er... he's just admitted he didn't (and still doesn't) have a patent on the device. It's been rejected twice!
He talks about his business plan -- is it even possible to copyright a business plan? I fail to see how the business plan of a California-based family company with a WINE handheld would be at all useful to a Korean PMP company releasing a successor to a previous successful device???
krosfyah
Syntax Error
Well, I don't know the guy with the blog and have never spoken to him. As I said in the other thread, I had a conversation with a different person and it turned out he was a business partner. He asked me not to divulge any details so I simply pointed the community to the blog as I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion (silly me I didn't realise there were people here that wouldn't think twice about publicly humiliating a disabled guy and his son).craigix posted on Sep 12 2006 at 11:01 PM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
T
TelcoLou
Guest
subcon959 posted on Sep 12 2006 at 06:24 PM said:
Why does he have a public blog in the first place, if not to attract coments from strangers? Besides, I don't see anyone here poking fun of his handicap (I didn't even know he was disabled) Besides² ... wasn't it YOU that started this mob scene in the first place?
subcon959 posted on Sep 8 2006 at 11:50 AM said:
^ Taken from this topic: http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?showtopic=31673 Real subtle clues BTW ... firestarter.
Last edited by a moderator:
gaterooze posted on Sep 12 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
from wikipedia:
"Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. Copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted. See idea-expression divide.
For example, the copyright which subsists in relation to a Mickey Mouse cartoon prohibits unauthorized parties from distributing copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works which copy or mimic Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of artistic works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are sufficiently different to not be imitative of the original. Other laws may impose legal restrictions on reproduction or use where copyright does not - such as trademarks and patents." - For which he has no patent
Last edited by a moderator:
starpause
Member
subcon959 posted on Sep 12 2006 at 05:24 PM said:
never mind loling over someone so blatently retarded that his blog makes him out to be the sorry mutant cousin of jack thompson. shit!
Last edited by a moderator:
krosfyah
Syntax Error
There was nothing inflammatory in that post! I worded that like that cause I was a bit ticked off at having some juicy gossip but not being able to share it.TelcoLou posted on Sep 12 2006 at 11:31 PM said:subcon959 posted on Sep 12 2006 at 06:24 PM said:
Why does he have a public blog in the first place, if not to attract coments from strangers? Besides, I don't see anyone here poking fun of his handicap (I didn't even know he was disabled) Besides² ... wasn't it YOU that started this mob scene in the first place?
subcon959 posted on Sep 8 2006 at 11:50 AM said:
^ Taken from this topic: http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?showtopic=31673 Real subtle clues BTW ... firestarter.
Last edited by a moderator:
greenmikey
dancin' to the moldies
Dont get yourself into a sticky situation
lizard808uk
Child of the 80s
This kind of reminds me of all those Pirate Bay legal threats. It won't amount to anything. I would be more concerned with Nintendo when they launch the Wii and go after all the rom distributors and emulator authors, probably including here :unsure:
T
TelcoLou
Guest
subcon959 posted on Sep 12 2006 at 07:03 PM said:
... and look what your playful teasing caused. <_<
What did you expect to happen by 'leaking' this information, exactly?
Last edited by a moderator:
