Date   

COPYRIGHT

jstanton@...
 

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your review. I would not feel morally culpable nor
legally liable now should I make a copy of a manual for an instrument
that I own.

I do not have a 2236 manual, unfortunately, but I do have a 191
manual, in case you don't have one for your instrument.

What do think of Mike's caution on liability? I know that US law
differs from British and I suspect Canadian law where product
liability is concerned but even under US product liability it would
seem to be a stretch to make a company liable for the hazards
surrounding vacuum tubes. Even the much publicised problems of
legal liabilities in General Aviation are to my knowledge limited to
crashes - the use of the item for its intended purpose.

It has made me wonder about the legal problems waiting for the
manufacturers of exotic tube type audio equipment where the tubes are
openly displayed so that the glowing plasma and filaments are in
plain view.


Best Regards

John Stanton
Wood Dale IL


Re: More Copyright...

mwcpc7@...
 

In a message dated 09/23/2001 8:44:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrlaw@istar.ca writes:


Be aware that Courts are not perfectly predictable and that
judges are human too. Cases are and will be much influenced by
perceptions of "fairness" and "reasonableness". One or two copies is
one thing; dozens will probably be something else all together,
especially if the are offered for sale to all comers without regard
to whether the purchaser has any rights from the owner of the
copyright. Thus if I go to Kinko's and have a couple of copies made
of Tek 2336 service manual (which I am still looking to borrow!),
certainly OK. However, if I order up 100 and post a notice on the
internet offering Tek manuals for sale, this would infringe Tek's
copyright.
For the purposes of the law, quantity is irrelevent. If the work was a
limited run "work of art" selling for thousands of dollars a copy, even one
illegal copy would be very significant. The fact that Tektronics charges
hundreds of dollars a copy would give the seller of even a single copy a
problem in court.

However the philosophy that one is morally obligated to obey the letter of
the law always reminds me of the good burgers of Germany who righteously
rounded up their neighbors for deportation because "it's the law." I agree
with Tektronics policy of "looking the other way" when they see vendors
offering copies of out of print manuals on the Internet and in trade
magazines.

My other thoughts about abandonment and limitations on
remedies defining rights still apply and the practicalities should
influence Tek in these matters (as should their share price which
suggests that they could use more friends like the supporters in this
group). Most of us may not be personal purchasers for a new DSO, but
some of us may buy a few shares from time to time in companies that
we respect.

Kindest regards Richard Jones
It would be very unlikely that Tektronics would grant blanket permission to
publish copies of obsolete manuals for a reason not much mentioned here:
liability. It can be quite dangerous to work on scopes especially tube-type.
When one pays thousands of dollars for a unit (inflation adjusted) it can be
expected that it will be serviced by a qualified technician. However selling
a manual to someone with no electronics background who just paid $5.00 for a
scope at a flea market could considered irresponsible. Even though Tek might
not be directly involved in the transaction, simply permitting it might be
enough for a law firm looking for the nearest deep pocket. It would make me
nervous if I were a Tek executive.


I think that the present "informal" arrangement for distributing manual
copies is the best approach.

Mike Csontos


Re: More Copyright...

jrlaw@...
 

Toronto, Canada
Sunday, September 23,2001

Dear John:

You have it right. Under Canadian and English law this
concept is referred to as the implied licence that is granted to a
purchaser of the copyrighted product. For that purchaser, who gave
value to the copyright owner, this licence is more generous than the
public "fair use" rights. It would usually be implied to permit the
making of personal use copies and replacement or repair copies. I
understand that on the same analysis, including the term "first use",
most US courts recognize the same rights.

Be aware that Courts are not perfectly predictable and that
judges are human too. Cases are and will be much influenced by
perceptions of "fairness" and "reasonableness". One or two copies is
one thing; dozens will probably be something else all together,
especially if the are offered for sale to all comers without regard
to whether the purchaser has any rights from the owner of the
copyright. Thus if I go to Kinko's and have a couple of copies made
of Tek 2336 service manual (which I am still looking to borrow!),
certainly OK. However, if I order up 100 and post a notice on the
internet offering Tek manuals for sale, this would infringe Tek's
copyright.

My other thoughts about abandonment and limitations on
remedies defining rights still apply and the practicalities should
influence Tek in these matters (as should their share price which
suggests that they could use more friends like the supporters in this
group). Most of us may not be personal purchasers for a new DSO, but
some of us may buy a few shares from time to time in companies that
we respect.

Kindest regards Richard Jones



--- In TekScopes@y..., jstanton@v... wrote:
The recent discussion has awakened my interest in copyright, and I
have read a little more.

I have just discovered "The right of first sale". This is the
legal
basis for being able to sell a book. When you buy a book you only
own the paper and binding, not the content, which belongs to the
copyright holder. You just purchase a right to read the content.

The "right of first sale" is the legal principle that makes selling
second-hand publications legal. Since Tektronix instruments were
sold with a manual and a right to read the manual embedded in the
price one can assume that the ownership of the instrument carries
with it a right to read the documentation. Should the original
printed copy of that documentation be lost, damaged or destroyed
you
still hold a right to read and should be quite entitled in
obtaining
a copy so that you can assert your right.

The foregoing argument would suggest that ownership of the
instrument
permits you to legally obtain copied documentation. Companies like
Tucker who supply manual copies with their instruments are unlikely
to be violating any law.

Richard, you might like to give a lawyers opinion.

John Stanton
Wood Dale IL
jstanton@v...


More Copyright...

jstanton@...
 

The recent discussion has awakened my interest in copyright, and I
have read a little more.

I have just discovered "The right of first sale". This is the legal
basis for being able to sell a book. When you buy a book you only
own the paper and binding, not the content, which belongs to the
copyright holder. You just purchase a right to read the content.

The "right of first sale" is the legal principle that makes selling
second-hand publications legal. Since Tektronix instruments were
sold with a manual and a right to read the manual embedded in the
price one can assume that the ownership of the instrument carries
with it a right to read the documentation. Should the original
printed copy of that documentation be lost, damaged or destroyed you
still hold a right to read and should be quite entitled in obtaining
a copy so that you can assert your right.

The foregoing argument would suggest that ownership of the instrument
permits you to legally obtain copied documentation. Companies like
Tucker who supply manual copies with their instruments are unlikely
to be violating any law.

Richard, you might like to give a lawyers opinion.

John Stanton
Wood Dale IL
jstanton@viacognis.com


Re: Looking for some parts

Thomas P. Gootee
 

Doug,

I may have some or all of the parts you need. I have some "dead" 7A26
plug-ins, some 7x03 stuff, and possibly the 7904/7854 part.

Email me, at tomg@fullnet.com (tomg at fullnet.com).

Regards,

Tom Gootee

http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg (Used Test Equipment)

"I never give them hell. I just tell them the truth, and they think
it IS hell." - Harry S. Truman

------------------------------

--- In TekScopes@y..., Doug Hale <DougHale@i...> wrote:
Can anyone help me find these parts?

What I need are:

155-0067-02 Regulator IC for 7904, 7854
336-1299-00 Grey knob for 7A26, and others
336-1308-00 Red calibration knob for 7A26, and others
384-1178-00 Calibration knob extention shaft (6.1 ") for A26

???-????-?? the leg that pulls down from the bottom of a 3
bay
frame

any help anyone can give is appriciated.
Doug


Re: service menual for : tek. 2430

Thomas P. Gootee
 

Avinoam,

Try some of the links to dealers that are posted on my LINKS page, at:

http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg/links.htm

Be warned that some of the dealers sell only COPIES of the manuals
(such as www.w7fg.com). Others, such as AST Global, sell only
originals. There is also a 48,000-manual searchable database of
manuals for sale, at http://www.used-line.com.

Also, if you scan the recent posts in this group regarding the
manuals/copyright issue, you may see a few even-better sources (e.g.
Deane Kidd, Stan Griffiths, Ed Matsuda (sp?), et al).

Some people will also just look up the info you need, for you. (I
would. But I don't currently have a 2430 service manual.) You might
want to try posting a specific request, and/or a description of your
scope's symptoms/problems, on the Usenet's sci.electronics.repair
newsgroup. There are lots of ex-Tek employees who lurk there, who are
also usually quite helpful.

BTW, I always use http://www.deja.com (now owned by Google), to
access the newsgroups. ***** They now have the full 1995-to-present
ARCHIVE of ALL newsgroups' traffic back on line (and are adding prior
years/periods as they acquire them)!! It's truly a GOLDMINE!! *****

Good luck!

Best regards,

Tom

email: tomg at fullnet.com (delete spaces and substitute "@" for "at")

http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg (Used Test Equipment for sale, et al)

--- In TekScopes@y..., zipi-u@z... wrote:
i have problems with my 2430 scope.
can you help me to get a copy of the service manual.
to begin i need the votages at the crt tube (base&hv).
if you hold a menual can you send ne this data ?
thank you
Avinoam K.


Re: Copyright

Joseph Orgnero <joseph@...>
 

I have purchased spray paint from Surplus Sales of Nebraska and it was sent
to me by regular post with no problems at either end.
Joe Orgnero VE7LBI

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles <jmiles@pop.net>
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Date: September 18, 2001 04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For
spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be
shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes
but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is
in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Copyright

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Richard,

If you really regale people with perfection of Tektronix past practices, you
could make use of the following phrase, which I lifted from e bay auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1637670885
<http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1637670885>

This magnificent device was designed as part of the 500 series, during the
Tektronix " golden age ", where no solution was too expensive. [emphases
added]


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: jrlaw@istar.ca [mailto:jrlaw@istar.ca]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:46 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

Toronto, Canada
Monday, September 17, 2001

Dear John:
Thank you for your reaction to my thoughts on this
issue. It
has clearly hit a number of nerves!

In terms of what to do, I would hope that Stan
Griffiths and
others will simply forward the exchanges of messages from
this group
to a number of execs at Tektronix. While they may have left
the
golden era behind, it must be admitted that they are still a
pretty
fine company and, hopefully not unaware of their market. The
views of
people such as the enthusiasts here are important. In my day
job, I
am the senior partner of a Canadian business law firm and I
will
regale people with my pleasure at having got a Tek 191
Constant
Amplitude Signal Generator. As they glaze over, I have been
known to
describe the perfection of its manufacture! Small thing
maybe, but it
is a good thing for a business to have some folks out there
who think
their products are (or were) the best.

Hopefully, Tektronix will be persuaded that indirectly

supporting the "legacy" equipment is cost effective
marketing. If
Stan's friends in Tek Legal would like some suggested
wording for a
public use license, I would be please to contribute some of
my
copyrighted work product absolutely free!

Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)

Regards Richard Jones


--- In TekScopes@y..., jstanton@v... wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thank you for an elegant treatise where you raise the
issue
of "fair
> use", the rights associated with the sale of the
instrument and a
way
> in which Tek could grant a limited license for the
distribution of
> documentation. What you suggest make eminent sense and
should be
the
> last word on this matter.
>
> How an we persuade or help you to present your proposal to

Tektronix?
>
> Regards
>
> John Stanton
>
> --- In TekScopes@y..., jrlaw@i... wrote:
> > Toronto, Canada
> > September 16, 2001
> >
> > Re: Tek Copyright and Out-of-Print Manuals
> >
> > The debate on this issue has become more heated than
it
should.
> I
> > know that we all look forward to hearing the feedback
from Stan
> > Griffiths' dialogue with Tek Legal. In the meantime,
perhaps a
> couple
> > of Canadian cents worth may help to avoid escalating the

discussion
> > beyond the private rights actually involved.
> >
> > This is not a matter of criminal or public law.
Copyright is
> the
> > property that each of us enjoys in what we create in the
form of
> > original artistic work. It is seperate and different
from
> patentable
> > inventions or unique useful designs. The right is a
private right
> to
> > enjoin others from using your artistic work for profit
or in
> > competition with you. Rights are usually best understood
by
looking
> > at the remedies that give them effect. Private property
rights
> don't
> > mean much without a remedy.
> >
> > The usual remedy fro copyright infringement is
damages for
> lost
> > profit by the owner of the copyright or an accounting
(and
payment)
> > for all profits and gains made by the infringer. If the
owner
> suffers
> > no loss and the other user is not using in trade seeking
profit,
> > usually (but not always) there will be no enforcement
proceeding
by
> > the owner. Nobody but the owner can or cares to enforce
his
> property
> > right. The owner may abandon copyright into the public
domain or
by
> > his conduct grant extnded implied licences.
> >
> > An important implied licence recognized by decided
cases in
> most
> > jurisdictions is "fair use". It is not infringement to
copy
> portions
> > of a work for review or comment in other works. It is
not
> > infringement to copy for private educational or private
> convenience.
> > It is generally not infringement if there is no injury
to the
owner
> > of the copyright.
> >
> > In the case of out-of-print written works (such as
Tek
> manuals),
> > the important consideration is that Tek chooses not to
further
its
> > copyright by publishing. A purchaser of a Tek scope
(which
contains
> a
> > great deal of copyright such as panel layout, colour
schemes,
> > component layout, circuits etc.) purchased a copyrighted
manual
> with
> > it. The licence to use those copyrights is transferred
to each
> > subsequent owner. Such an owner does not infringe Tek's
copyright
> if
> > he or she copies for purposes incidental to the
ownership, such
as
> > replacement or repair of lost or damaged material or for
his or
her
> > private convenience.
> >
> > Copies made for further publication to others,
particularly
if
> > for the purposes of trade, do infringe the Tek copyright
because
> such
> > use was never contemplated by Tek or reasonabley implied
from
their
> > original sale. Such copying trespasses on Tek's property
rights.
It
> > is entirely Tek's choice as to whether they choose to
enforce
those
> > rights.
> >
> > By not publishing out-of-print manuals and by not
licencing
> > someone to do it under their rights, Tek may be
implicitly
> abandoning
> > these old copyrights into the public domain and
permitting anyone
> to
> > reproduce them. In my opinion, it would be best for Tek
to grant
a
> > general licence permitting free publication but only if
the copy
is
> > accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves
all
circuit
> > rights and other proprietary rights and containing a
disclaimer
> from
> > any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would
be easy to
> do
> > and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the
reputation of
> Tek.
> >
> > We can all hope that the raising of this issue in
the
> dialogue
> > of this forum may stimulate a thoughtful policy review
by Tek. A
> > great company, that has produced the best equipment for
so long,
so
> > much of which rises to the level of "art", should be
able to find
a
> > solution that will preserve its proprietary rights will
also
> > encouraging and supporting the enthusiasts of its past
> achievements.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Richard B. Jones


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


service menual for : tek. 2430

zipi-u@...
 

i have problems with my 2430 scope.
can you help me to get a copy of the service manual.
to begin i need the votages at the crt tube (base&hv).
if you hold a menual can you send ne this data ?
thank you
Avinoam K.


Re: Copyright

Peter Florance
 

We buy a lot of aerosol and they always shipped ground to us with stickers
indicating the content.
One time I re-used such a box for overnight shipment and forgot to remove
the sticker and got the box back with a nastygram some 7 days later.
Now I look twice...
Peter Florance
Audio Services
544 Central Drive
Suite 101
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
757.498.8277
757.498.9554 Fax
Email: mailto:audserv@exis.net
http://www.audio-services.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles [mailto:jmiles@pop.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:04 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I
get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I
want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page
195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer
Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a
ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to
be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early
scopes but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these
requirements is in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Copyright

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

They send it by UPS ground, that is how I got it. And DeOxit is highly
flammable.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles [mailto:jmiles@pop.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:04 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship
aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from
them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


> Hi Miroslav,
>
> Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that
I get put when
I
> start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint
of the people
"who
> ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post
Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
> Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and
read some more.
I
> agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and
I want to find
it.
>
> Stan
> w7ni@easystreet.com
>
> Miroslav Pokorni wrote:
>
> > Stan,
> >
> > You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a
highest class of
> > hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no
matter what it
is. I
> > am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local
post office an
ignorant
> > clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped',
because he thinks it
is
> > better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at
the postal
> > regulation at
http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
> > <http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page
125, you will see
> > aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment,
whether they are
flammable
> > or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site,
page 195 lists
> > paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship.
To boot it,
Post
> > Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer
Goods'. For spray
> > cans propellant is most likely a determining factor
(flammable or not)
and
> > if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to
get a ruling on
what
> > is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray
can packaged
things,
> > from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no
one from here
trots
> > to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay
$22 Hazardous
Fee
> > nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say
that this
exorbitant
> > fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things
have to be shipped,
> > too.
> >
> > It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets
into air
transport
> > and post office takes parcel post (non-first class,
non-priority) as
ground
> > transportation.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Miroslav Pokorni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
> > [mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25
AM
> > To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re:
Copyright
> >
> > jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:
> >
> > > Keep up the stimulating debate
in amongst
important
> > things like
> > > finding sources for Tektronix paint.
(yes, the
distinctive
> > colour is
> > > probably capable of being the subject
of copyright!)
> > >
> > > Regards Richard Jones
> >
> > Well, I've got the paint in spray cans .
. . both the
latest
> > Tek Blue and an
> > earlier Tek Gray that was on the really
early scopes but
I
> > have yet to figure
> > out a both legal and economic way to
ship it . . .
> >
> > Asking other people how they do it
usually results in
> > finding out they simply
> > do it illegally . . . not terribly
unlike copying
manuals .
> > . .
> >
> > I HAVE found a company that can ship it
for me. The
cost
> > breakdown goes like
> > this:
> >
> > Paint per can = $15.00
> > UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
> > UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee =
$22.00
> > Packaging fee = $75.00
> > Total = $118.00
> >
> > for ONE can.
> >
> > The reason the packaging fee is so much
is that the
person
> > doing the packing
> > has to be "certified". To get certified
you have to
take a
> > training course
> > in packing hazardous materials that
takes 3 days and
costs
> > $500 in tuition
> > and fees.
> >
> > The penalty for ignoring all of these
requirements is in
the
> > range of a
> > $10,000 fine if you get caught.
> >
> > This is what my research has turned up
so far . . .
> >
> > Stan
> > w7ni@easystreet.com
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> > TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Copyright

John Miles <jmiles@...>
 

I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: Copyright

Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@...>
 

Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people "who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more. I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it, Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not) and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: copyright issues...

Doug Hale <DougHale@...>
 

I am not usually one to add any fuel to this kind of fire but this is my experience with Tek.

If they wont support us, we have to do it ourselfs.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Doug Hale [mailto:doughale@inet-1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:43 AM
To: meas-svc-us@tektronix.com <mailto:meas-svc-us@tektronix.com>
Subject: Looking for a part



I am looking for a 155-0067-02.
Whom would I contact to locate this part?

Thanks,
Doug Hale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Hale,

Thank you for your inquiry. We have forwarded your request to our Sales
Department. You should be hearing from them soon. If you would like to
reach them directly, you may do so by calling 1-800-833-9200 option one.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

Aimee Belfiori,
Customer Service Representative
US Service Customer Support Center
Tektronix, Inc.
1-800-833-9200, Press "2" FAX: (503) 627-6260
Meas-svc-rmarequest@tek.com <mailto:Meas-svc-rmarequest@tek.com>
Instrument Service Booking:
http://www.tek.com/Measurement/Service/register/welcome.html Visit our Web Store site at: <http://catalog.tek.com/>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Hale,

The part number you have requested pricing for is now obsolete and there is
no replacement available.

Thank you for your interest in Tektronix,

Rita Scott
E Business Account Representative

TEKTRONIX

"Enabling Innovation"

United We Stand - God Bless America




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rita,
Thank you for your quick response to my inquiry.
Is it possible to locate some internal documentation on this part to allow me to build a discrete component
replacement?

Thanks,
Doug Hale



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Hale,

The part number you have requested pricing for is now obsolete and there is
no replacement available.

Thank you for your interest in Tektronix,

Rita Scott
E Business Account Representative

TEKTRONIX

"Enabling Innovation"

United We Stand - God Bless America



-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hale [ mailto:doughale@inet-1.com ] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:43 AM
To: meas-svc-us@tektronix.com <mailto:meas-svc-us@tektronix.com>
Subject: Looking for a part


I am looking for a 155-0067-02.
Whom would I contact to locate this part?

Thanks,
Doug Hale
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Doug,

We don't have documentation available on obsolete parts.

Thank you,

Rita Scott
Tektronix Inc.





Re: copyright issues...

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

I guess, cutting out 'free coffee' is more of a symptom of decline and from
there it is downhill all the way. I have been with company that tried to
disguise that it was on the skids, i.e. free coffee continued but there were
other 'cost cutting measures'.


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 2:34 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: copyright issues...

It started when Tek discontinued "free coffee" for employees
and went downhill
from there . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

> Stan,
>
> It came as quite surprise to me that rot set in into
Tektronix during 80s. I
> always thought that mid 90s brought that in, but then I am
slow to see
> trends, or I was indulging in wishful thinking.
>
> Regards
>
> Miroslav Pokorni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
> [mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:45
PM
> To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re:
copyright issues...
>
> Hi John,
>
> I am pretty familiar with how Tektronix
has behaved toward
> supporting some of
> their equipment in the last two decades or
so. I spent a
> total of 26.5 years of
> my life on Tek's payroll and, finally, in
late 1989, got so
> disturbed by what I
> saw happening inside of Tektronix that I
resigned my job as
> their Spectrum
> Analyzer Sales Engineer in the Pacific
Northwest. Believe
> me, this was not an
> easy move for me. I seriously thought I
would NEVER leave
> Tek. I was wrong.
>
> I still have many very fond memories of
life at Tektronix in
> the 60's and 70's
> and that is the part of Tek's history that
I enjoy reliving
> with my old
> collection.
>
> Still, they own that documented material
and have refused to
> let me have it. I
> am just not willing to steal it from them.
>
> How about a letter campaign to get Tek to
let up on burying
> that copyrighted
> material?
>
> Stan
> w7ni@easystreet.com
>
> John Miles wrote:
>
> > No offense or disrespect to Stan,
certainly, but I tend
> towards Michael's
> > point of view on this. If Tek wants to
preserve the
> "right" to "copy" their
> > literature, they can darned well "copy"
it themselves and
> offer it for
> > sale... at which point I'll be first in
line with my
> credit card.
> >
> > Tek's behavior of late has been nothing
short of shameful.
> They had no
> > qualms about selling a $50,000 spectrum
analyzer in 1994,
> but they'll tell
> > you to find a short pier and take a long
walk if you call
> them after 1999
> > asking to buy manuals and parts for your
instrument.
> >
> > My somewhat-anarchic take on the matter
is, if Tek won't
> step up to the
> > plate and support their products for a
reasonable length
> of time, then they
> > don't have much of a moral right to
complain when their
> customers do what's
> > necessary to take support into their own
hands.
> >
> > Is violation of copyright "right"? Of
course not; I make
> my living from
> > intellectual property and I'm the last
guy who wants to
> see lawlessness in
> > this area. But then, I wouldn't leave
my customers in the
> lurch after 5
> > years, either. I can, and do, take
support calls from
> people who bought
> > software -- software!! -- from me six or
seven years ago.
> Tek can either do
> > the same with their high-end hardware,
or they can get
> used to the
> > consequences.
> >
> > (Of course, this is all a moot point
nowadays, as I
> discovered when I bought
> > the $100 service manual for my TDS3034
and received a few
> pages telling me
> > how to take the back cover off.)
> >
> > -- jm
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Cannot Send to list - Test

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

This one does but it can be very slow. I made few mailings yesterday and
couple showed up as echoes after one hour and other two took two hours.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Florance [mailto:audserv@exis.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:46 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TekScopes] Cannot Send to list - Test

Strange. Some lists do not echo the sender but I know this
one does.

Peter Florance
Audio Services
544 Central Drive
Suite 101
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
757.498.8277
757.498.9554 Fax
Email: mailto:audserv@exis.net
http://www.audio-services.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:57 AM
> To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Cannot Send to list - Test
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> I saw your request on the list at least 3 times so it is
getting
> posted. I
> just don't have the stuff you need.
>
> Stan
> w7ni@easystreet.com
>
> DougHale@inet-1.com wrote:
>
> > I have not been able to post to the list - this is a
test from alternate
> > email address
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Copyright

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it, Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not) and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright



jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: copyrights & CDROMs

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Phil,

That is pretty sound advice, yes a mass mailing might really cause an undue
concern. I guess I got a bit carried away. I will site my youth as a cause,
I am only 56 years old.

The whole discussion did get overheated because we all mixed strict rule of
law, what is right (ethics) and what is practical. Your suggestion is on the
side of practical with some view of ethics, and that is probably best course
to take.


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil (VA3UX) [mailto:phil@vaxxine.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:46 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TekScopes] Re: copyrights & CDROMs

I'd be very careful about starting a campaign with Tek about
the vintage
manual situation. I suggest we "let sleeping dogs lie".
We've already been
given a preview of the answer such a request is likely to
bring : one
retired employee has never received permission and another
retired employee
was purportedly told " don't ask questions that you won't
like the answers
to". That last statement - if it's true an accurate - has
the answer we're
all looking for anyway but it's cleverly cloaked.

A petition is likely to attract the kind of attention that
will have the
effect opposite to the intended goal. In today's high tech
paranoia-driven
organizations, I can easily conceive a Vice President of
Historical
Relations and Vintage Affairs looking at this and thinking,
" my gawd !
There's 200 names on this letter. This must just be the tip
of the iceburg.
There must really be thousands of potential customers for
new products that
are being held captive by our older products. We'll stop
this menace right
now. We'll issue a letter informing that we intend to
prosecute copyright
infringement to full extent of the law, no matter how old
the
product. We'll force them out of the 60's and 70's and into
the year
2001". And then where would we be ? Worse-off than we are
right now where
little if any attention is being paid to the miniscule
market for copied
old manuals.

My advice : drop the issue and carry on as we have been.

Phil

At 12:13 PM 9/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
><snip>
>
>The letters that Stan mentioned and I understand that he
meant mass mailing,
>would be very effective. If letters came from people who
still work and on
>company letterhead, Tektronix might get an idea how their
scheming is
>received by potential customers. I do not think that Stan
and Dean should be
>asked to sign a 'collective letter'; they still know lot of
people at
>Tektronix and no strain should be put on those
relationships. Besides, in
>Tektronix's mind our group, as collectors, is of no
consequence, they are
>looking at people who would buy new equipment.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Miroslav Pokorni
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david@slack.com
[mailto:david@slack.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:03
AM
> To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re:
copyrights & CDROMs
>
> >PS . . . . . I have to confess that I
have made a copy of a
>page or two for
> >some desparate Tek equipment owners in
the past myself.
>One guy now offers a
> >CD ROM with 46 complete manuals on it,
which I consider
>orders of magnitude
> >worse than anything like this that I have
seen in the past.
>
> The manuals on that CDROM are *not* OEM
Tek or HP manuals.
>They are US
> Army manuals that are publically available
on an Army web
>site. I'm
> looking at one now (TM 11-6625-2759-14,
aka Tek 7L5 service
>manual) and it
> says "This manual contains copywrite [sic]
material
>reproduced by
> permission of the Tektronix Company." If
Tektronix objects
>to reproduction
> of this manual, it's really up to them to
complain to the
>Army. The guy
> selling the CDROM is not at fault.
>
> For what it's worth, my opinion on the
copyright issue is
>that the test
> equipment companies are happy with the
current ambiguous
>situation and
> don't have any reason to clarify it. They
also don't have
>an incentive
> to sue people for copyright violation
since the legal
>expenses would far
> exceed any possible damages they could
collect. Therefore,
>I predict the
> current situation will continue.
>
> In support of this, I have noticed that
even the largest
>test equipment
> dealers often supply photocopied manuals
with the used
>equipment they sell.
> Two examples are Electro Rent and Tucker
(Tucker also sells
>photocopied
> service manuals). This doesn't really
prove anything, but
>since they are
> franchised dealers for new equipment from
HP and Tek, it
>supports the idea
> that those companies must not be bothered
too much by the
>practice.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Copying permission from Tek

dhuster@...
 

The section at Tek that is devoted to these issues is "Patents,
Trademarks & Licensing". Our school was granted permission to
copy "Biophysical Measurements", an out-of-print "Measurement Concept
Series" book for educational purposes. We did it so that students
could have a copy of the book to read, but we did not market or sell
the copies. The permission was granted for an indefinite period of
time and all copies had to have a "Reproduced by permission" notice
with the original copyright notice.

We also had similar permission from Tek to copy schematics from
manuals for use in our curriculum to demonstrate the use of various
circuits "in the real world". This was back around 1989.

Dean


Re: Copyrights, patents, costs, etc.

Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Phil, I sure hope you are not self employed (My own employer
is a disappointing shell). Sorry Phil, I just could not resist this dig.


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil (VA3UX) [mailto:phil@vaxxine.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:13 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Copyrights, patents, costs,
etc.

I agree with you Dean but I don't recall anyone ragging on
Tek for the high
cost of their manuals. I've never spoken to anyone that
didn't consider
the Tek scope manuals to be the "benchmark" of what a manual
should be; a
standard to be worked towards by all others, a standard that
few others (if
any) achieved. The Tek manuals are masterpieces and they
should be
expensive. Now I'm referring here to the older stuff (50's
to 70's) since
that's pretty much all I have here. The work in putting
those manuals
together must have been incredible : the clarity of thought
and writing,
the photography, the details, the exploded diagrams as you
pointed out -
all first class. Now I do recall a recent post about
someone paying good
money for a current manual that sounded like it's content
was
disappointing, but that's the only negative I've ever heard
or
read. Clearly, Tek is a different company today than it was
30 or 50 years
ago. But so are most companies. My own employer is a
disappointing shell
of what it used to be just 15 years ago.

Anyhow I otherwise agree with everything you wrote.

Tnx.....Phil

At 04:19 PM 9/17/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>On behalf of Tektronix and every other manufacturer of
high-quality,
>industrial test equipment, I can understand why a manual
would cost
>so much. When you consider all of the drawings, parts
lists,
>mechanical parts "explosions", etc. complete with pull-out
>schematics, parts-placement diagrams, etc., all nicely
bound, heavily
>edited for minimal mistakes, high-quality paper, good
printing ....
>well, it's no wonder that a manual gets expensive. We can
rag on Tek
>all we want for high-cost manuals, but the day wasn't that
long ago
>that Tek charged either $7.50 or $15.00 for their manuals
regardless
>of the manual. Even back then, that was dirt-cheap!
>
>They always included two manuals with each instrument.
That's one
>reason that a lot of Tek manuals are so plentiful on the
surplus
>market.
>
>Tucker doesn't always copy those manuals. We tried
ordering an hp
>manual from them once and found out that the delay in
ordering and
>the high cost of the manual was because they were going to
order it
>directly from hp "for me" ... and add to the delay and the
cost
>considerable. (I don't remember the circumstances of why
we were
>ordering through them vs. directly from hp.)
>
>Tek sued for copyright and patent infringement once. It
left a bad
>taste in their mouths, too, so that may be why they "speak
loudly and
>carry a small stick". The suit where they sued the U.S.
Government,
>Lavoie Labs, Hickok, et. al. for "cloning" 545 scopes for
government
>contract fulfilment took upwards of 10 years and gained
them nothing
>but principle. The money they spent defending their
property was far
>greater than that awarded -- from companies long-gone.
>
>One reason that Tek is poor with support of older
instruments is that
>Tektronix is Tektronix's greatest competitor. How could
they expect
>to sell TDS-series scopes for a small fortune when there
were all
>kinds of fully-functioning, lab-grade, analog Tek scopes
out there on
>ebay and in "Nuts & Volts" magazine for pennies on the
dollar? You
>reduce that competition by killing support.
>
>The comment was made something on the order that Tek's
lousy customer
>service support on the older equipment is doing little more
than
>losing customers for new equipment. Who are we fooling
here? The
>same folks that are buying 465's, 7904's and 7854's off
ebay are not
>going to be buying anything new from Tek. That's not even
an
>argument.
>
>I'm not a Tek-blue supporter here. Just flipping over the
other side
>of the coin. I don't think that it makes sense that the
"Concept
>Series" and other out-of-print publications should be
hoarded by Tek
>and not shared. If there's no profit for them in
>reprinting "Vertical Amplifiers" for sale, then there's no
loss if
>someone else does. At that point, it's only a matter of
principle
>and is more like me when I was a kid not letting my sister
play with
>my microscope even though I hadn't touched it in six years
and had
>zero interest in it.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

183821 - 183840 of 184565