While I have no comments on the above conversation - again, I am an advisor for blockchain technology with Jetcoin, so my duty is to advise on technical solutions hoping to be listened - I find quite questionable the way things are managed.
Just for the sake of it, here are some other dates (it would have been an easier claim to make, rather to pretend to have patents that can't be proven):
Domains registrations of the original Jetcoin:
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=jetcoin.io
First Registered : 2014-06-27
http://who.is/whois/jetcoin.institute
First Registered : August 15, 2014
http://who.is/whois/jetcoininstitute.com
First Registered : February 08, 2015
Domain registration of the clone:
http://who.is/whois/jetcoin.org
First Registered : May 25, 2015
So, beside the silly way of handling a dispute, if we go down to facts, unless I am missing something on the clone side, the clone it is clearly a clone that is using the publicity cash spent by the original Jetcoin to get traction. IMO.
The logo are also somehow similar...
Now, while the word "Jet" and the word "coin" are very much used, and this can be a real incident and not a premeditated cloning, one thing I do now for sure, is that the "original" jetcoin has loads of cash to spend in legal fees, so I really hope it will not go in that direction
Jetcoin Institute has spent a lot in advertising in the past year and it is an easy claim to say someone else is both enjoying that promotion as the name is similar, and claiming damages for the image. The copyright law - if I recall correctly as I am not an expert - claims that when no registration is made the first public appearance of the brand (in a newspaper, fro example) is a valid claim for a copyright.
Roberto
NOTE: the one above is just my personal opinion as a user of this forum, and DOES NOT represent the views and voice of Jetcoin Institute in any way.
Just for the sake of it, here are some other dates (it would have been an easier claim to make, rather to pretend to have patents that can't be proven):
Domains registrations of the original Jetcoin:
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=jetcoin.io
First Registered : 2014-06-27
http://who.is/whois/jetcoin.institute
First Registered : August 15, 2014
http://who.is/whois/jetcoininstitute.com
First Registered : February 08, 2015
Domain registration of the clone:
http://who.is/whois/jetcoin.org
First Registered : May 25, 2015
So, beside the silly way of handling a dispute, if we go down to facts, unless I am missing something on the clone side, the clone it is clearly a clone that is using the publicity cash spent by the original Jetcoin to get traction. IMO.
The logo are also somehow similar...
Now, while the word "Jet" and the word "coin" are very much used, and this can be a real incident and not a premeditated cloning, one thing I do now for sure, is that the "original" jetcoin has loads of cash to spend in legal fees, so I really hope it will not go in that direction
Jetcoin Institute has spent a lot in advertising in the past year and it is an easy claim to say someone else is both enjoying that promotion as the name is similar, and claiming damages for the image. The copyright law - if I recall correctly as I am not an expert - claims that when no registration is made the first public appearance of the brand (in a newspaper, fro example) is a valid claim for a copyright.
Roberto
NOTE: the one above is just my personal opinion as a user of this forum, and DOES NOT represent the views and voice of Jetcoin Institute in any way.
'Roberto', your use of the English language nearly exactly matches that of 'Eric Alexandre'. Do not worry, as we are not going to waste the time or resources confirming that statement. What is true is that you in fact did comment on the comment.
As an adviser to the fake entity known as the 'Jetcoin Institute', perhaps a higher degree of research should have been implemented before any advice was presented to peers in the circle of mistrust being conveyed through the real entity of Ikon Media Pte Ltd. Had such research been conducted, it would have been clearly known that the real Jetcoin has been in existence since 2001, long before opportunists not located in Singapore laid a claim within the UK and brought in photoshop for a stake that truly does not exist in Italy. Any such claims to copyrights and trademarks are simply invalid.
It is just interesting to see the representatives of this project get on the defensive as if it has done something questionable in which it truly has. So, we are writing this to provide awareness on such issues as a statement from us can easily yield 20,000+ views here on bitcointalk alone without a single penny spent on such raising of awareness. Everyone on the planet needs to be aware of this very matter and we will most likely fail to attain such a goal.
Let us not forget that we were in fact approached with both a statement and threat of action that simply isn't true. We are now on day two on this path of enlightenment on ways the project is conducting business. In fact, we have never once claimed any patent in Jetcoin. So do not mislead this forum or potential clients with language that is intentionally confusing to the average person.
We have never cloned your non-existent product and everyone with access to Google can easily confirm this fact. In fact, it only takes less than 30 minutes to produce a quality NXT derivative and that time period includes installing Ubuntu. Everyone knows that we are not into NXT or any of its derivatives and we will not produce a product based on that platform due to various reasons. For anyone to state that we cloned your product, including you, is simply ludicrous. It is true, however, that the non-existent entity you represent did in fact utilize our work and we have never authorized any external entity to do so.
For you to say that our real product is a clone or similar in any way is just not true. What we are working on is completely different and will never be the same just as Chrysler makes an 'Engine', Ford also makes an 'Engine'. Any five year old can grasp the concept of the preceding sentences with great ease.
It is shame that anyone has spent any amount of funds on advertising this. We can only surmise that those funds where also obtained in a questionable fashion as well. We will repeat this: do not mislead anyone with false statements. We have never used any funds that you claimed we have utilized. Your statement clearly and without doubt misrepresents the facts as we have never had access to any funds in which you stated that we used. We find such language to be outrageous if not slanderous as well.
To summarize, you are right in that you are not an expert. We doubt that you truly understand blockchain technology and are amused that you are an 'adviser' in such a field. You nor those that you claim you do not represent do not have permission to use our work and continued use of it is a clear violation of our rights.