Hi folks, I'm at loss... I don't know what to believe anymore? And I'm sorry to have to bring this up again... You know what I'm talkin about... EphEsGeeEs... Marc Sykes' post #87 in the 'original' thread, carries a totally different content than the 'FSGS Reply'... Quote Marc: 'I had a very pleasant conversation of around 90 minutes or so with Michael yesterday, and in the first half hour or so he asked some general questions about my system and then told me in general terms what he felt he could do for me. At that point he said (paraphrasing), "Ok, if we're going to go any further in this, then I am considering you to be my client and as such I need to tell you that the information I provide to you as a consultant is protected, and you can't share it with anyone ..." and so on. After I agreed to that, we began specifically working on my system.' End quote. Now what? Kind regards Jaap

Hi Jaap,First, I think we should keep in mind that Marc surely paraphrased what was said in conversation with Michael. That in itself would make what Marc wrote more an example than a formal stipulation. The only way to know for sure is to accept FS-GS's offer and wait to hear such a stipulation. I for one would not accept it, but that's my choice.Quoting Gosta, who has the legal background to support what he writes here, "an original piece of work able to be preserved in a permanent fashion, by script or otherwise, enjoys copyright protection. However, a troubleshooting method does not. It is a service, not a product. Thus, any claim to IP protection made by the provider and/or customer of such service is erroneous." (From a post he made in Elrond's now locked thread).Regards,Greg

Hi Jaap,I don't see much of a contradiction here. Marc is paraphrasing parts of the conversation he had with FSGS staff, as he remembers it. And Mr Greenblatt said the following in his post:>We ask not force or bind each of our clients to understand, after they have finished, that being as this service is completely individualistic and each session is specific to their computer and it

Hi Gosta and Greg Thanks for your replies. I hope I'm able to undertand the fine line... Now, even Marc paraphrasing a context, I still see a remaining, contradiction potential. Because it's what the customers make of it and not only the fine wording. Funny or not so funny, either way one looks at it, it's about how others will eventually incorporate an idea. And this question is mainly emotional. People not double-thinking certain statements might think: Yeah, that's right. Even while it might not be. But who am I telling? What bothers me particularly, none of the statements are set to meet a standard or definition thus far. Like, what exactly is smoothness? Etc. IMHO, FSGS took their time to say a little less than nothing... Everything they said, was very carefully worded, as one could expect from an entity manoevering in between various fronts... On one hand they can't go and publicly say i.e: 'Nvidia is rubbish' and on the other hand hope, their customers keep this same analysis to themselves... Personally. I feel this is the wrong way to go for FSGS, if they seek long term business interests. A 'good' company would encourage open communication and seek transparency. Simply because there would be more definition and verification. Besides, there's plenty of people, who've i.e. never manipulated the registry. IMHO, this is where FSGS should concentrate. For the non-basic OS-HW people, this service is more than justified. When they change something, happy as they are, they'll return... The best part of his reply, paraphrasing (!): If we can agree on the terms of the review, there will be one... Hilarious! Another tactical, psychological and marketing concern is also to be considered IMHO: Putting talks about trade secrets towards customers is posing a lot of weight (specially if lived-after) on the client's shoulders. Putting it like this would signify, customers starting to weigh their words... I don't believe, that's a position a company should put any of their clients into. Nevertheless, this seems to have happened, at least partially. And last but not least, we're talking about our hobby... Anyway, my main intention is and was (alongside Elrond, Dick, you, etc), we only have to make sure folks don't subduce to the mistaken idea, knowledge sharing is illegal... Therefore, I wanted to virtually put the 2 statements together in the initial post. Thank you for adding substance, Gosta. I'll take your: 'We'd appreciate it a lot, if you didn't tell all your friends how we work.' And leave it there for tonight... BTW, I once again totally admire one of the biggest gifts of Companies, Corporations and Governments: Their almost Orwellian ability to select names. This time the great 'System Unification.' But to me it's as meaningful as various western 'ministries of defense' on the attack..! Hehe. Kind regards and cheers everybody Jaap