RE: copyright, that mythical concept

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

with all due respect jeff, you are ill-informed.

1) wrt the torsen=torsen=torsen argument, (which is so facile as to be
laughable)

can you tell me for example that all torsens have the same bias ratio in
acceleration or deceleration?

or that all torsens have the same locking characteristics?

or that all torsens have equal front/rear torque bias?

i assume you are not trying to tell us that these things are immaterial to
the functioning of the device?  if you are, then a great number of engineers
have wasted a great deal of their time, and lodged patents for nothing.

also, if you are at all familiar with the torsen, you will know that gleason
is not now involved in it's developent nor has it been for a number of
years.

i suggested you contact chocholek and ask him about his role with gleason,
seeing as his name doesn't occur in the literature that counts.  simple
question really.

hth,
dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'88 mb 2.3-16

-----Original Message-----
From: OorQue@aol.com [mailto:OorQue@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 1999 16:29
To: Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz; quattro@audifans.com
Subject: Re: copyright, that mythical concept


>  based on the diversity of design, to talk of a torsen differential
(singular) is clearly inaccurate.
>  there are at least 4 distinctly different evolutionary types.

And there are at least 15 distinctly different brands of toilet paper for
sale at the grocery store across the street from my house yet despite their
many differences in color and softness, they all operate in *exactly* the
same way.  That other Torsen designs have different bias ratios and
power-handling capacities doesn't change the basic way in which they
operate...

>  chocholek name does not appear in any of these.  from what i have been
told
>  in email, he was a contract engineer to gleason and was engaged as a
>  technical writer more than as a development engineer.

E-mail from whom?  At the time I spoke with Chocholeck, there were only six
people left at Gleason and only one of them had ever worked with him ...
needless to say, this makes me a little curious about your source.

>  why don't you check with him?

If you tell me who said this, I'll be happy to call and ask him.  However, I
don't see any point in calling him just to tell him that some guy in New
Zealand received an e-mail from somebody, somewhere -- I don't know who --
that said he was hired by Gleason "as a technical writer more than a
development engineer."  That would be rather impolite, don't you think?  I
certainly wouldn't do it to you...

JG