Beautifully put, Sal!
________________________________ From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodle...@mail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Legal fight over calming technique lacks harmony --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > On the contrary, I like a bit of competition. The independents all > > charged much less than the TMO and perhaps it was this need to get > > people through the door that forced TMO to lower the price? eventually > > it became almost sensible and if you care about that sort of thing.... > > > > Of course. Competition is good, and it has that effect. Just don't > infringe on others propietary trademarks or research. But I agree that > it will be interesting how they sort out the case. > > I mean you can essentially make identical sneakers as long as you have a > different brand. But to piggy back of someone elses research when you > are using the same technique, just calling it something different-that > would be interesting. As I keep saying, most of the research is independently conducted. Therefore, to reference it in relation to the same meditation technique isn't anything that anyone, even the TMO, could possibly get annoyed about. Even the research that the TMO paid for itself cannot be claimed as private, science never is. As long as someone is using the same technique any results will apply equally. It's the TMO that uses science as an advertising tool and it's one of the best it's got, unfortunately you can't copyright the results themselves. Much as people would want to. The only hope they've got of winning on those grounds is to prove that the techniques aren't the same. And I'm sure we all know they are. Maybe they'll be reading out mantras lists in court and how they are chosen? Can you see that happening? Not really, so it will come down to trademarks and suchlike though I suppose the TMO could claim the teachers swore to always teach within the TMO and are therefore in breach of contract. But I know one independent teacher who used the defence that it was the TMO who broke the contract by tripling the price and therefore putting him out of business. He still teaches TM but calls it transcendental vedic mumbling or something, still references research and still thinks it's going to create a better world. As I always say, it didn't work for us why do we think it's going to change the world? The more legal cases there are, the less convincing the whole thing sounds don't you think? > I guess the angle is, "I am teaching this age old meditation technique. > It is the same technique taught by the TMO. In fact I was trained by MMY > who founded the TMO. You can look at the research conducted by the TMO > to see the benefits of this meditation, that is, the same meditation I > teach." That's what they all say and it isn't a lie to say they were trained by the TMO. The TMO OTOH claims that independent teachers have changed the technique and you aren't getting the same thing anymore. Is that true do you think? I suspect not. The indies I know are just as devoted to Marshy as they always were and think they are doing his will by teaching as many as possible. Would they risk undermining what they see as someone's birthright by messing with the technique? I know one guy who held courses for anyone who did TM regardless of whether they were taught "officially" he said it was a real pleasure to have new meditators who weren't aware of the TMO politics and stupidity and didn't spend the whole course moaning about governors and how crap the whole thing was and where the money went, or being too terrified to have an opinion about anything in case they got blacklisted. So maybe the indies have done a lot of people a big favour in sparing them from movement politics? Perhaps it will hinge on whether TM was marketed by the TMO as > an age old technique lost, and brought back by MMY. On the other hand, > there is the technique, which may be "age old", and then the course in > which it is administered. And certainly that course has propietary > componets. I would be inclined to come down on the side of the TMO on > this basis alone. Proprietary parts of the learning course you mean? I can't think of anything you could get legal over, probably why they are taking the attack they are....
