Quote:
Originally Posted by OldBear
I didn't think she would have an answer for that one.
Still, the replies she has given you over the months, AND her constant unwillingness to address certain issues you raised, just show how dodgy this whole scheme is. So much for transparency. 
Thanks for a brilliant effort, Robert. 
OB |
I've sent a final farewell email saying I will respect her wishes and not contact her again, but meanwhile could she look at the BT Broadband Office blog page and also the
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/crime.htm site and imagine being cross examined on their content in a criminal trial for copyright abuse. It seemed a nice thought to finish on.
---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1
hammy to be absolutely correct
04-05-07
"Online advertising firm 121Media Inc has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of newly-formed holding company Phorm Inc following a reorganisation, Phorm said."
that is create a new umbrela company, absorb the failing company whose public image and how it is perceived by the public means it cannot continue to trade (oh and don't forget the various legal agencies in the US taking a close interest in 121media due to peopleonpage and the root kit )
all this to try and get away from a tainted image, unfortunately this has been rumble and all the money spent rebranded has been for nothing
shame that, how is your mate kent feeling due to the low share price
din't he take out loans to buy them? or was it used them as security for loans?
with the current credit crisis would be a shame if the loan was called in O:-)
peter
|
Look I have to take issue with that scurrilous accusation. Phorm did NOT waste lots of money rebranding. They nicked the logo, and the name of the company and they nicked the name of the product. After all they were already in use on the internet, so that made them fair game. The logo and the company name was copied from a very decent design company in Sheffield/Barnsley, and the product name was nicked from the BBC. I don't think any of their names/logos are copyrighted for that very reason - they were already nicked.
So you see your accusation that they wasted money on rebranding is very very unfair. They did it on the cheap. Virtually free in fact. Cool.