"Cian Duffy" <myob87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29/07/06, Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Cian, > > > > > Be had some arrangement to let you use the icons freely, > > > IIRC, but I believe an email either to or from Be was > > > required to do so. Someone with a dump of be.com > > > from 1999/2000 could check for sure; but until someone > > > with both EU and US legal knowledge has had a look at > > > said agreement, using them is dodgy. > > > > Who exactly is "us" and was there no limit on the purpose? > > > US = United States, I don't think I used the word to mean a > group of people in this section... Perhaps Stephan was thinking of the "you" in "Be had some arrangement to let you use the icons freely". > And I really can't remember, > but I believe there was effective free reign granted. > All I can see on the website is that if you got permission > you had to state you'd got it. Be's statement: http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/aboutbe/legal.html > Now, who you'd ask for > permission now is another story entirely, I don't know the > icon rights went with the code to Palm and hence Access; > or stayed with Be which appears to have liquidated entirely > by this stage. Good question. I believe all IP was transferred, except for the name of Be and the right to sue Microsoft and keep the winnings. The icons must have been transfered. I highly doubt that Be kept the icons, of all things, and I doubt that Palm made the contract more complex by adding a para- graph stating they take all of Be's IP -except- the icons. :)) But IANAL. Now, whether or not property can be "intellectual" is a good question. /Jonas Sundström. www.kirilla.com