It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So the question is whether they simply took advantage of the public's "prior knowledge" of the drones and worked it into the series or did they fabricate the drones to develop "prior knowledge" so they could work it into the series?
Originally posted by gorgo
So the question is whether they simply took advantage of the public's "prior knowledge" of the drones and worked it into the series or did they fabricate the drones to develop "prior knowledge" so they could work it into the series?
Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Originally posted by gorgo
So the question is whether they simply took advantage of the public's "prior knowledge" of the drones and worked it into the series or did they fabricate the drones to develop "prior knowledge" so they could work it into the series?
It is a good question and my thoughts were along much the same lines. Perhaps the Isaac/Caret/C2C drones Were all part of a campaign, either as a promotion or means to gauge reaction/acceptance.
???
Originally posted by atsbeliever
Btw that picture is WAAY too over saturated, the sun bloom wouldn't be like that in reality
Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Originally posted by atsbeliever
Btw that picture is WAAY too over saturated, the sun bloom wouldn't be like that in reality
uhm .. tell that to the folks at FOX, it's a screen cap straight from the final episode.
Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Originally posted by gorgo
So the question is whether they simply took advantage of the public's "prior knowledge" of the drones and worked it into the series or did they fabricate the drones to develop "prior knowledge" so they could work it into the series?
It is a good question and my thoughts were along much the same lines. Perhaps the Isaac/Caret/C2C drones Were all part of a campaign, either as a promotion or means to gauge reaction/acceptance.
???
Originally posted by atsbeliever
for the love of god, its NOT a viral marketing campaign..I have NEVER seen a campaign that does not eventually give the actual product or service recognition..whats the point if it doesn't do that?! Ok end of story there.
Alienware just ripped off the designs of this stuff, its a pale imitation and frankly doesn't look as good, anyone can see that. Ok end of story there.
I am however convinced this is just a plain old HOAX, no ties to dell, fox or anything else. Any gumbo with Alias Maya, Max or Lightwave could have made & rendered these objects with Mental Ray. Period.
Sorry, too much there to ignore. Their second email, to a member here Fil000, contradicted the first email..In it Fill0000 wanted to use the designs on a line of computer hardware he produced..but they said no...they had intellectual rights, and were not allowing its use anywhere at the current time. except we know..the isaaccaret site where the story originated. Sure other sites use their letters, but we are talking about a genuine licensing issue that was denied..why is that.
They are available as high resolution scans that I am giving away free, PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT MODIFIED IN ANY WAY AND ARE KEPT TOGETHER ALONG WITH THIS WRITTEN MATERIAL.
§ 1310. Application for registration (a) Time Limit for Application for Registration. — Protection under this chapter shall be lost if application for registration of the design is not made within 2 years after the date on which the design is first made public. (b) When Design Is Made Public. — A design is made public when an existing useful article embodying the design is anywhere publicly exhibited, publicly distributed, or offered for sale or sold to the public by the owner of the design or with the owner's consent.
4.117 Many statutes qualify “reproduction” with some such phrase as “or substantial reproduction.” The question of what is “substantial” will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and will be for the court to assess. It has been said in a leading case that “the question whether the defendant has copied a substantial part depends much more on the quality than the quantity of what he has taken.” And in another case “what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting.”