New Rough Cut show

MJ <[email protected]> wrote:

> As some of you may know, Fine Woodworking and PBS are now showing a new Rough Cut with host Tom McLaughlin.
>
> It's showing locally here in the SF Bay Area but not yet on the premium PBS channel.
>
> I saw one show an have another recorded which I expect to watch today or tomorrow.
>
> I enjoyed the previous version of the show but can see that this one is not only different in scope but of a high level of craftsmanship. No dog houses will be built here.
>
> What to you all think?
>
> MJ

WGBH-TV is sued by woodworking show host Tommy Mac

By Emily Sweeney Globe Staff April 27, 2018

Thomas J. MacDonald, who goes by the nickname "Tommy Mac," spent
years filming himself while he built fine furniture. He posted the
videos online for his weekly webcast, "The Rough Cut Show," and
developed such a following that WGBH-TV eventually picked up the
show.

MacDonald went on to host "Rough Cut: Woodworking With Tommy Mac,"
for seven seasons on WGBH, and after the last season ended in
December 2016, he thought the series was over.

But it wasn’t. Last fall, MacDonald was surprised to find out that
WGBH was promoting Season 8 of "Rough Cut," with a new host named Tom
McLaughlin.

MacDonald is now suing WGBH for trademark infringement.

After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
produce a counterfeit show."

WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
series.

"The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
issue."

The Fine Woodworking magazine website says, "WGBH has spent the last
seven years building the Rough Cut brand. The brand is synonymous
with the craft of fine woodworking."

"Tommy MacDonald has decided to branch out and pursue other
opportunities on his own," the website says. "WGBH and Tommy
MacDonald had seven great seasons working together on Rough Cut.
Rough Cut is the strongest woodworking brand on public television and
that brand continues on, with a new host."

According to the complaint, MacDonald worked as a carpenter until he
injured his shoulder in 1997. He then embarked on a new career in
cabinetry and woodworking and enrolled in the North Bennet Street
School in the North End, and went on to promote himself and his work
through online videos.

From 2006 to 2009, MacDonald produced a weekly, Web-based woodworking
show called "The Rough Cut Show," "which ultimately had over 2
million page views and hundreds of thousands of followers," the
complaint states. MacDonald filmed the show at his workshop in
Canton, and the episodes appeared on Bob Vila’s website
(www.BobVila.com) and on his own website, the complaint states.

MacDonald’s lawsuit alleges that WGBH, The Taunton Press, Inc. (the
company that publishes Fine Woodworking magazine), and Laurie
Donnelly, the executive producer of the series, "are infringing on
the trademarks, name, picture, and reputation" of MacDonald.

In the complaint, attorney John J. E. Markham II argues that under
the terms of MacDonald’s contract, WGBH was allowed to register a
trademark for the title of the show (‘Rough Cut: Woodworking with
Tommy Mac’) but should not have registered standalone trademarks for
"Rough Cut" or his nickname, "Tommy Mac."

Markham filed a motion for a preliminary injunction Friday alleging
that the defendants are "attempting to pirate" MacDonald’s "good
name, his reputation, and his trademarks."

The motion seeks to stop WGBH from promoting the new show as "Season
8" and from using photos of MacDonald and the phrases "Rough Cut" and
"Tommy Mac."

A memo filed in support of the motion states that "MacDonald has been
known since the early 2000s as ‘Tommy Mac’ of ‘Rough Cut,’ the latter
name being his longtime woodworking show. For many years, strangers
have approached him on the street and called out ‘Hey, you’re Rough
Cut!’ or ‘Hey, Tommy Mac!’?"

Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.

"Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
resolution."

<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/04/27/wgbh-sued-woodworking-show-host-tommy-mac/N72LnhoElILTKPC9vxvMFO/story.html>

<https://current.org/2018/04/former-host-of-wgbh-woodworking-show-files-trademark-infringement-suit/>

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>=20
> I took a look at Felder.
>=20
> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
> they try to sell those things here.

You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at that cannot=
break down a sheet of plywood. Felder is one of the European saws that ha=
ve sliding tables. Similar to Martin and Altendorf and SCMI. The PREMIER =
saws used by every company in the world that manufactures with plywood. So=
you are saying these companies cannot break down sheets of plywood even th=
ough they do that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Hmmm. None of them use =
extinct USA cabinet saws except as ripping saws. With a power feeder bolte=
d to it, a cabinet saw with a rigid fence is great for ripping. Just throw=
the wood at the fence and let the power feeder catch it and you can rip wo=
od endlessly.

I bet he signed over all rights to the show when he signed the original con=
tract. Just sore feelings now. This sounds about like if the SawStop inve=
ntor, who sold the company to Festool. If next year Festool improves the S=
awStop and makes lots of sales, the inventor guy then sues Festool for stea=
ling his saw business. He sold it! But he is a lawyer I heard. So its ve=
ry possible he is starting a lawsuit against Festool right now. Maybe clai=
ming they should have paid him twice what they paid him the first time.

On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> >> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> >> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> >> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>> >
>> >3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>>
>> I took a look at Felder.
>>
>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>> they try to sell those things here.
>
>https://www.felder-group.com/us-us/products/sliding-table-saws.html
>
>This is a link to what Felder sliding table saws look like. And you say they can't break down a sheet of plywood? The small sliders would have a hard time dealing with a 4x8' sheet of plywood. But all the big sliders would gobble it up with ease.

Might be nice if one is into metric systems. I don't have the time to
convert everything to see the spec's. Plus you cannot even get the
list price without signing up.

As to the argument regarding cutting up 4x8 sheets, you still have to
deal with the same unwieldiness that you do with an American Table
Saw.

As to safety, and costs, I preferred the other brand that was banned
from the USA, a whole lot less expensive and replacement parts would
have been available everywhere had they'd been able to continue
selling here.

On 5/29/2018 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>>
>>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>>
>>> You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at that cannot break down a sheet of plywood.
>>
>> The one that has a 30 inch rip limit and costs 5300 bucks.
>
> Any pro shop "breaking down sheets of plywood" will have a panel
> saw for that purpose. Silly to use a tablesaw for that.
>

Totally agree if this type of panelsaw, which is a table saw.

https://lagunatools.com/classic-machinery/panelsaws/p12-4-panelsaw/

The panel saws that you see in Home Depot for cutting plywood are
IMHO not the best set up. I do not like the horizontal cuts that they
make. the top portion of the cut piece pinches the blade near the end
of the cut.

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.

So seriously... you think Festool is so stupid, so inexperienced, and so naive that they didn't factor that in? Really? Festool (a subsidiary of a much larger investment group)alone brings in 400 million a year.

Doubt that their is a lack of business acumen on Festool's (or their parent company) part that would allow them to have those facts go unnoticed.

Robert

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
> >> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
> >> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
> >> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
> >
> >3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger sa=
ving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I=
also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than th=
is finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can'=
t wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCM=
I put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid=
1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>=20
> I took a look at Felder.
>=20
> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
> they try to sell those things here.

https://www.felder-group.com/us-us/products/sliding-table-saws.html

This is a link to what Felder sliding table saws look like. And you say th=
ey can't break down a sheet of plywood? The small sliders would have a har=
d time dealing with a 4x8' sheet of plywood. But all the big sliders would=
gobble it up with ease.

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 10:50:26 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
=20
> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.

I am in 100% agreement with you. Somewhere in the body of the contract tha=
t is no doubt 2" thick between TM and the station, and more importantly sin=
ce the producer is the station, there will be nomenclature similar to "WGBH=
(hereinafter known in this document as "the station") shall retain complet=
e and total ownership of all trademarks, copyrights, patents, devices, prot=
ocols, methodology, inventions, or any other work developed, displayed or e=
mployed by the TM for WGBH, the station, its affiliates, its associates, or=
the production company. Further, the station retains ownership of all int=
ellectual property, promotional material including, but not limited to, lik=
enesses, slogans, promotional videos, accompanying music, theme music, tran=
sitional video techniques, used in the show that are developed for the use =
of the show at the request or expense of the production company while in pr=
oduction."

Think of 50 pages defining their view of intellectual property, or ideas an=
d inventions that were discussed during the production of the show but neve=
r realized. Still, in these cases, if you thought of it while you worked f=
or the, your thoughts are their property.

I have read a lot about PBS and their development and production of shows. =
They learned a lot from the people that owned "Barney", that insanely moro=
nic purple dinosaur. PBS needed the money, and since they produced the sho=
w and were the sole broadcasters of it, they sued for a share of the insane=
profits that show made. PBS lost. They sued again, and lost again. The =
people that created that purple dinosaur only allowed PBS to produce and br=
oadcast the show. There were books, dolls, etc., and all manner of income =
streams that were generated, and PBS saw nothing from it. ZERO.

The admin that ran PBS at the time released a statement after the second lo=
ss in court that said the "Barney" business model would never again be used=
by PBS. They would either own outright, or not produce. Broadcast, yes. =
But if they were to go through the development, writing, producing, promot=
ion and all the other tasks of bringing a show alive, it was to be theirs. =
=20

Check it out:

https://current.org/1995/03/what-did-barney-earn-and-why-didnt-pbs-get-more=
/

Hard to believe the federal government paid to have the show made and when =
successful, the owners of the show kept ALL the money.

Betcha TM never read (or understood) the contract...

Robert

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:33:21 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworkin=
g
> >>>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
> >>>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
> >>>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
> >>>> produce a counterfeit show."
> >>>>
> >>>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
> >>>> series.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
> >>>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
> >>>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
> >>>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
> >>>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
> >>>> issue."
> >>>>
> >>>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
> >>>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
> >>>> at what they=E2=80=99re doing, and he looks forward to having a quic=
k court
> >>>> resolution."
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did s=
ome
> >>> trademark filings.
> >>=20
> >> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.
> >
> >Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than=
=20
> >what is actually in the contract, either.
> >
> >Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>=20
> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
> about such silliness.

That's why I don't do anything when I'm at work. ;-)

J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>>
>>3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>
>I took a look at Felder.
>
>5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>they try to sell those things here.


What gives you the impression they're trying to sell to homeowners?

On 5/31/2018 11:36 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 5/31/18 10:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/29/2018 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood?  I'm
>>>>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>>>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at
>>>>> that cannot break down a sheet of plywood.
>>>>
>>>> The one that has a 30 inch rip limit and costs 5300 bucks.
>>>
>>> Any pro shop "breaking down sheets of plywood" will have a panel
>>> saw for that purpose.   Silly to use a tablesaw for that.
>>>
>>
>> Totally agree if this type of panelsaw, which is a table saw.
>>
>> https://lagunatools.com/classic-machinery/panelsaws/p12-4-panelsaw/
>>
>>    The panel saws that you see in Home Depot for cutting plywood are
>> IMHO not the best set up.  I do not like the horizontal cuts that they
>> make.  the top portion of the cut piece pinches the blade near the end
>> of the cut.
>
> They are great for breaking down sheets to rough sizes, but that's about
> it.
> The ones at HD are not kept up very well, always have dull blades and
> the operators are hit or miss.
>
>

I suspect the dull blades are because of the pinching and burning at the
end of the horizontal buts. ;~)

J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>
>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>
>>You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at that cannot break down a sheet of plywood.
>
>The one that has a 30 inch rip limit and costs 5300 bucks.

Any pro shop "breaking down sheets of plywood" will have a panel
saw for that purpose. Silly to use a tablesaw for that.

On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:

> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
> produce a counterfeit show."
>
> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
> series.
>
> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
> issue."
>
> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>
> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
> resolution."

Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
trademark filings.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:23:53 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>
>So seriously... you think Festool is so stupid, so inexperienced, and so naive that they didn't factor that in? Really? Festool (a subsidiary of a much larger investment group)alone brings in 400 million a year.
>
>Doubt that their is a lack of business acumen on Festool's (or their parent company) part that would allow them to have those facts go unnoticed.

I think Festool is banking that people buy Sawstop because of its
excellence as a saw and not because it makes their insurance company
happy. They may be right, or they may not. The market will tell. I
would consider Gass to be a liability in any company other than a law
firm.

On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 8:35:41 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
> >>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
> >>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
> >>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
> >>
> >>3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger s=
aving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But =
I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than t=
his finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can=
't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SC=
MI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupi=
d 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
> >
> >I took a look at Felder.
> >
> >5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
> >afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
> >they try to sell those things here.
>=20
>=20
> What gives you the impression they're trying to sell to homeowners?

I think Felder, and now their cheaper Hammer brand, have always tried to se=
ll to homeowners, shop owners, residential woodworkers. Pretty positive th=
at has been their focus in Europe since they started 50+ years ago. Their =
combination machines are designed to save space and give lots of functional=
ity in a small footprint. Just what a homeowner needs who has a small work=
space at home. Recently Felder has expanded into the industrial market wit=
h their more professional machines that are competitors with Martin, Altend=
orf, SCMI.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 17:44:13 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:33:21 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>> >>>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>> >>>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>> >>>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>> >>>> produce a counterfeit show."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>> >>>> series.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>> >>>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>> >>>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>> >>>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>> >>>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>> >>>> issue."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>> >>>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>> >>>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>> >>>> resolution."
>> >>>
>> >>> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
>> >>> trademark filings.
>> >>
>> >> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.
>> >
>> >Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>> >what is actually in the contract, either.
>> >
>> >Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>>
>> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
>> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
>> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
>> about such silliness.
>
>That's why I don't do anything when I'm at work. ;-)

I didn't do it.
Nobody saw me do it.
There's no way you can prove anything!
-Bart Simpson

On Mon, 28 May 2018 07:43:44 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>
>>> Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>>> what is actually in the contract, either.
>>>
>>> Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>>
>> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
>> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
>> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
>> about such silliness.
>
>But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous
>work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics
>conveyed by the contract did they?
>
>What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered
>within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and
>similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't
>give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court
>settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just
>how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll
>one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation"
>as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.

Per the USPTO web site:

"ROUGH CUT WOODWORKING WITH TOMMY MAC" registered April 12 2011,
registrant WGBH, with Thomas MacDonald's consent to register on
record. "Woodworking" explicitly excluded from the trademark.

"Rough Cut" registered March 1, 2011, WGBH.

"Tommy Mac", first use in commerce 12/30/2010, filing date May 21,
2018, applicant Thomas J. MacDonald LLC.

Now, whether WGBH misrepresented the authorization to the USPTO is
another story, but it looks like he's trying to close the barndoor
after the horse has left.

On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> >> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> >> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> >> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>> >
>> >3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>>
>> I took a look at Felder.
>>
>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>> they try to sell those things here.
>
>https://www.felder-group.com/us-us/products/sliding-table-saws.html
>
>This is a link to what Felder sliding table saws look like. And you say they can't break down a sheet of plywood? The small sliders would have a hard time dealing with a 4x8' sheet of plywood. But all the big sliders would gobble it up with ease.

And they all cost more than 5300 bucks.

Sorry, but you're saying that a company should spend many times what
it needs to spend in order to have one of these sliding tables.

I can see where Ikea would love them--they look like they're great for
making shelves out of veneered particleboard. But Ikea doesn't
exemplify excellence.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:10:16 -0700 (PDT), MJ <[email protected]>
wrote:

>As some of you may know, Fine Woodworking and PBS are now showing a new
>Rough Cut with host Tom McLaughlin.
>It's showing locally here in the SF Bay Area but not yet on the premium PBS channel.
>I saw one show an have another recorded which I expect to watch today or tomorrow.
>I enjoyed the previous version of the show but can see that this one is not only
>different in scope but of a high level of craftsmanship. No dog houses will be built here.
>What to you all think?
>MJ


I'll look for it - thanks for the heads up.
John T.

On 5/27/2018 2:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>
> So seriously... you think Festool is so stupid, so inexperienced, and so naive that they didn't factor that in? Really? Festool (a subsidiary of a much larger investment group)alone brings in 400 million a year.
>
> Doubt that their is a lack of business acumen on Festool's (or their parent company) part that would allow them to have those facts go unnoticed.
>
> Robert
>


Consider the source Robert. A sour puss.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>
>3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.

I took a look at Felder.

5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
they try to sell those things here.

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.

3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger savin=
g saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I al=
so think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this =
finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't w=
ait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI p=
ut the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 18=
00s American cabinet saws extinct.

On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:47:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I bet he signed over all rights to the show when he signed the original contract. Just sore feelings now. This sounds about like if the SawStop inventor, who sold the company to Festool. If next year Festool improves the SawStop and makes lots of sales, the inventor guy then sues Festool for stealing his saw business. He sold it! But he is a lawyer I heard. So its very possible he is starting a lawsuit against Festool right now. Maybe claiming they should have paid him twice what they paid him the first time.

The biggest problem with him has always been that he's a lawyer.
Instead of coming up with an idea and bringing it to market and
selling it, his original plan was to get a law passed forcing everyone
to license his patent. When that failed then he started making a
product but continued to try to get laws passed forcing people to buy
it. He still failed at that. Then he showed his true colors after
arguing for years that he was only interested in protecting people by
suing Bosch when they developed a different system that achieves a
similar result.

Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
market will be flooded with clones shortly after.

On Mon, 28 May 2018 18:48:11 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2018 15:33:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>>>> >> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>>>> >> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>>>> >> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>>>> >
>>>> >3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>>>>
>>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>>
>>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>>
>>>https://www.felder-group.com/us-us/products/sliding-table-saws.html
>>>
>>>This is a link to what Felder sliding table saws look like. And you say they can't break down a sheet of plywood? The small sliders would have a hard time dealing with a 4x8' sheet of plywood. But all the big sliders would gobble it up with ease.
>>
>>Might be nice if one is into metric systems. I don't have the time to
>>convert everything to see the spec's. Plus you cannot even get the
>>list price without signing up.
>>
>>As to the argument regarding cutting up 4x8 sheets, you still have to
>>deal with the same unwieldiness that you do with an American Table
>>Saw.
>>
>>As to safety, and costs, I preferred the other brand that was banned
>>from the USA, a whole lot less expensive and replacement parts would
>>have been available everywhere had they'd been able to continue
>>selling here.
>
>The only one in that line though was a small jobsite saw.

I forgot about that. :(

On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> I took a look at Felder.
>>
>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>> they try to sell those things here.
>
>You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at that cannot break down a sheet of plywood.

The one that has a 30 inch rip limit and costs 5300 bucks.

>Felder is one of the European saws that have sliding tables.

Yep, says so right on the description. What of it?

> Similar to Martin and Altendorf and SCMI. The PREMIER saws used by every company in the world that manufactures with plywood.

You'e conducted a survey of companies in the US that manufacture with
plywood?

>So you are saying these companies cannot break down sheets of plywood even though they do that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Yep. If they're making countertops or something where the limited rip
capacity is not an issue then maybe they can live with it, but others
can't.

>Hmmm. None of them use extinct USA cabinet saws except as ripping saws.

Why would they need a US saw for ripping?

>With a power feeder bolted to it, a cabinet saw with a rigid fence is great for ripping.

That's nice.

> Just throw the wood at the fence and let the power feeder catch it and you can rip wood endlessly.

Changing the subject are you?

On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>
>>>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>>>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>>>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>>>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>>>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>>>
>>>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>>>> series.
>>>>
>>>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>>>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>>>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>>>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>>>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>>>> issue."
>>>>
>>>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>>>
>>>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>>>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>>>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>>>> resolution."
>>>
>>> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
>>> trademark filings.
>>
>> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.
>
>Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>what is actually in the contract, either.
>
>Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.

Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
about such silliness.

On Mon, 28 May 2018 15:33:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> >> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>>> >> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>>> >> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>>> >> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>>> >
>>> >3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>>>
>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>
>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>
>>https://www.felder-group.com/us-us/products/sliding-table-saws.html
>>
>>This is a link to what Felder sliding table saws look like. And you say they can't break down a sheet of plywood? The small sliders would have a hard time dealing with a 4x8' sheet of plywood. But all the big sliders would gobble it up with ease.
>
>Might be nice if one is into metric systems. I don't have the time to
>convert everything to see the spec's. Plus you cannot even get the
>list price without signing up.
>
>As to the argument regarding cutting up 4x8 sheets, you still have to
>deal with the same unwieldiness that you do with an American Table
>Saw.
>
>As to safety, and costs, I preferred the other brand that was banned
>from the USA, a whole lot less expensive and replacement parts would
>have been available everywhere had they'd been able to continue
>selling here.

The only one in that line though was a small jobsite saw.

On Mon, 28 May 2018 07:43:44 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>
>>> Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>>> what is actually in the contract, either.
>>>
>>> Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>>
>> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
>> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
>> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
>> about such silliness.
>
>But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous
>work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics
>conveyed by the contract did they?
>
>What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered
>within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and
>similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't
>give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court
>settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just
>how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll
>one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation"
>as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.

Maybe en ought to cover the cost of his new shop and tools too.

On 5/25/2018 10:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>
>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>> series.
>>
>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>> issue."
>>
>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>
>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>> resolution."
>
> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
> trademark filings.

Cohen was busy with other things at the time and didn't return his calls...

On Mon, 28 May 2018 07:43:44 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>
>>> Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>>> what is actually in the contract, either.
>>>
>>> Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>>
>> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
>> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
>> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
>> about such silliness.
>
>But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous
>work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics
>conveyed by the contract did they?

Some did, sure. They're unenforceable, though. Some wanted a list of
everything I'd done that I considered exempt from the contract (yeah,
that's going to happen).

>What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered
>within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and
>similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't
>give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court
>settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just
>how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll
>one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation"
>as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.

It was stated as "intellectual property" - a pretty broad brush. In
this case, they picked up his show and had to have rights to the name.
It may be that the contract stated that they could use the name (it
would have to) but likely that they now owned the name.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>
>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>> series.
>>
>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>> issue."
>>
>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>
>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>> resolution."
>
> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
> trademark filings.

It's all about the Benjamins. I predict a fairly swift payout to T Mac
to make it go away.

WGBH: "We hope to be able to resolve this issue."
T-Mac's lawyer: "looks forward to having a quick court resolution."

On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 8:35:41 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>> >On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>> Apparently Festool took Gass on as part of the package--they say that
>> >>> the management team remains in force. I think it was a bad choice on
>> >>> Festool's part. The patents expire in 3 years and I suspect that the
>> >>> market will be flooded with clones shortly after.
>> >>
>> >>3 years is pretty quick. Hope that's all it takes to get more finger saving saws on the market. I personally think its a great technology. But I also think its far far far better to have a sliding table on a saw than this finger technology. Much safer that way. AND far more productive. Can't wait until Felder and Hammer and MiniMax and Martin and Altendorf and SCMI put the finger technology on their sliding table saws. Make these stupid 1800s American cabinet saws extinct.
>> >
>> >I took a look at Felder.
>> >
>> >5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood? I'm
>> >afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>> >they try to sell those things here.
>>
>>
>> What gives you the impression they're trying to sell to homeowners?
>
>I think Felder, and now their cheaper Hammer brand, have always tried to sell to homeowners, shop owners, residential woodworkers. Pretty positive that has been their focus in Europe since they started 50+ years ago. Their combination machines are designed to save space and give lots of functionality in a small footprint. Just what a homeowner needs who has a small workspace at home. Recently Felder has expanded into the industrial market with their more professional machines that are competitors with Martin, Altendorf, SCMI.

In any case, when you can get a perfectly adequate saw that will break
down a sheet of plywood for half the price, why would anyone not
having a specialized need want to spend the extra.

Note that it _will_ break down _European_ plywood, which typically
comes 5x5 instead of 4x8.

On 5/25/18 9:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>
>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>> series.
>>
>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>> issue."
>>
>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>
>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>> resolution."
>
> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
> trademark filings.

Exactly. He's being a bit of a crybaby.
Good news is, maybe I'll be able to watch that show now that he's not on
it.
I couldn't take more than 30 seconds of his annoying voice and
exaggerated mannerisms.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>
>>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>>
>>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>>> series.
>>>
>>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>>> issue."
>>>
>>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>>
>>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>>> resolution."
>>
>> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
>> trademark filings.
>
> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.

Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
what is actually in the contract, either.

Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.

--

On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
...

>> Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
>> what is actually in the contract, either.
>>
>> Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
>
> Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
> that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
> everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
> about such silliness.

But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous
work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics
conveyed by the contract did they?

What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered
within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and
similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't
give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court
settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just
how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll
one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation"
as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.

--

On 5/31/18 10:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/29/2018 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:37:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at Felder.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5300 bucks for a saw that can't break down a sheet of plywood?  I'm
>>>>> afraid that they need to learn a bit about the American market before
>>>>> they try to sell those things here.
>>>>
>>>> You will have to tell us exactly which Felder saw you looked at that
>>>> cannot break down a sheet of plywood.
>>>
>>> The one that has a 30 inch rip limit and costs 5300 bucks.
>>
>> Any pro shop "breaking down sheets of plywood" will have a panel
>> saw for that purpose.   Silly to use a tablesaw for that.
>>
>
> Totally agree if this type of panelsaw, which is a table saw.
>
> https://lagunatools.com/classic-machinery/panelsaws/p12-4-panelsaw/
>
>   The panel saws that you see in Home Depot for cutting plywood are
> IMHO not the best set up.  I do not like the horizontal cuts that they
> make.  the top portion of the cut piece pinches the blade near the end
> of the cut.

They are great for breaking down sheets to rough sizes, but that's about
it.
The ones at HD are not kept up very well, always have dull blades and
the operators are hit or miss.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>
>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>> series.
>>
>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>> issue."
>>
>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>
>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>> resolution."
>
>Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
>trademark filings.

My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.

On 5/26/2018 1:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:

>
> Betcha TM never read (or understood) the contract...
>
> Robert
>

You're going to give me how much? When? Where do I sign?

On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:47:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>
>>> After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking
>>> magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine
>>> Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in
>>> Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to
>>> produce a counterfeit show."
>>>
>>> WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the
>>> series.
>>>
>>> "The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an
>>> e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear
>>> that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to
>>> the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is
>>> involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this
>>> issue."
>>>
>>> Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
>>>
>>> "Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven
>>> years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened
>>> at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court
>>> resolution."
>>
>> Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some
>> trademark filings.
>
> My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.
>

Agreed, Tommy probably wet his pants with the opportunity of being on a
nationwide TV show came up. WGBH saw this is one of thousands that they
have signed on and are well versed in crossing the t's and dotting the
I's long before they approached Tommy.

On 5/26/2018 6:29 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2018 1:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Betcha TM never read (or understood) the contract...
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> You're going to give me how much?  When?  Where do I sign?


Exactly! Wasn't Tommy's series a spin off from SNL's Wayne's World? ;~)