Forum Message

Topic: Re:The
Posted by: Michael Carroll
Date/Time: 30/09/2002 02:06:47


Interesting post I enjoyed the journey you created  linking NLP database- to intellectual property rights- issues with software IP -then going sports -then raves-   then how the internet challenges authority  closing with your case for remaining anonymous  I don't think your post (as you seem to think) is provocative. From where I sit I would prefer you were consistent with the underlying suggestion for openness in the field,  that you were open and revealed your identity.

Anyway, I agree if NLP had been  trademarked in the early days it probably would not have grown like it has.  Technically ideas cannot be trademarked a trademark refers to the terms and systems. I am not an expert on this.

The data base as we have been discussing here as suggested in Whispering would include the classic code patterns and new code patterns. These patterns are not trade marked so they would be there un trade marked, but with full credit to the developer(s) of the pattern. My thinking as new patterns and models unfold  different developers will have different approaches to their work. If some one has trade marked a term, and posted the model that the term represents, we should respect that  persons wishes with the trade mark. . On the other hand if some one does not use a trade mark for their pattern, full respect and acknowledgement should always be given to the developer of the pattern. Both scenarios  equate to the same thing, full acknowledgement for the pattern created

Payment would be impossible on the net. Payment usually only occurs when a licence arrangement is set up.  Bandler operates a license fee not a trade mark.(that comment was for Robert)

It’s a tough call. We live in different times now and intellectual property and trade marking is the way of the world. In an ideal world we wouldn't need it but people do not always recognise the creators of patterns. Look what happened in NLP.... Richard Bandler and his mates attempted to negate John Grinders contribution- saying that John was not the co creator of NLP. Despite all the books Grinder and Bandler  wrote etc... people in the NLP community began to believe Richard. Another case - I heard a well known NLP trainer say publicly that his friend (an even more well known NLP Trainer) discovered eye patterns…….  oooo YEEA.

My thinking is if we want to encourage people to present their work in a public data base,  we need to be respect their choice - if they trade mark so be it, if they don’t so be it. I think a set of criteria would work , so if a trademarked pattern is presented to the database,  the creator  acknowledges that he/she is releasing his/her intellectual property into the public domain with people having full right to use that model for personal use.

Please be aware that this post is not in anyway representative of John Grinder or Carmen Bostic St Clair’s thoughts with respect to trademarks or databases.


Michael Carroll

Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
The 29/09/2002 17:12:59Exit
     Re:The 'death' of NLP29/09/2002 17:21:06Exit
          Re:Re:The 'death' of NLP03/10/2002 16:26:30Carlos
     Re:The 29/09/2002 20:45:37Robert
     ReRe:The 29/09/2002 20:47:59Greg
     Re:The 30/09/2002 02:06:47Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:The death of NLP30/09/2002 15:09:17Exit
               Re:Re:Re:The death of NLP30/09/2002 15:48:53Ian Newton
     Re:The 30/09/2002 16:39:36Jon Edwards
     Re:The Death of NLP01/10/2002 12:44:41Greg
          Re:Re:The Death of NLP01/10/2002 17:49:55Charles Ross
               Re:Re:Re:The Death of NLP01/10/2002 20:54:21Exit
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:The Death of NLP02/10/2002 14:02:59Zaphod

Forum Home