On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Matthew Mucker wrote:

> >Thanks for all the advise.  I am not planning to make any money off this
> >project.  I just did it for fun in my spare time.  I think I'll just write
> >to Dolby and ask how they would feel about it.  I cannot call my project
> >Dolby Pro-Logic for the reason that the Dolby Pro-Logic name is owned by
> >dolby and the software I wrote does not meet the entire spec.  I don't
> >have the time or money for lawyers, so I might have to blow off the whole
> >deal if Dolby even whinces.
>
>
> There are all kinds of black boxes out there that do (in essence) surround
> sound decoding similar to Pro-Logic.  Even the hobbyist electronics
> magazines publish such projects.  None of these, I'm sure, are licensed.
> Of course, none claim to be Pro-Logic compatible, either.
>
> Legally, I'm no guru (along with the others here), but realistically, I'm
> sure Dolby has better things to do than waste money going after you.
> (IMHO)  I'd just make sure to avoid using the words Pro-Logic in
> association with your product that go any further than "achieves sonic
> performance similar to Dolby Pro-Logic..." and be sure to credit the
> trademark.
>
> $0.02, please

The check is in the (e) mail.


> -Matt
>
>
>   "DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and
> millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million
> machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that
> cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do
> not denote a higher life form."
>