From: owner-97up-list-digest ford-trucks.com (97up-list-digest)
To: 97up-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: 97up-list-digest V2 #228
Reply-To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-97up-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-97up-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


97up-list-digest Thursday, August 26 1999 Volume 02 : Number 228



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1997 and Newer Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 97up-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up
Re: FTE 97up - PSD Warranty? Is it 100k?
Re: FTE 97up - PSD Warranty? Is it 100k?
Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up
FTE 97up - Muth mirrors and fog light kit
FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up
Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up
RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
Re: FTE 97up - Gibson Exhaust
FTE 97up - Spare Tire Adapter

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:32:29 -0400
From: "Kenneth J. Nagy"
Subject: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up

Here's an FYI for Explorer owners.

Got the first flat on my '96 the other day and had to use the spare. I used
Ford's handy gloves that were located near the jack, and used the rod to
crank down the spare tire from it's perch under the rear luggage
compartment. I removed the spare, then cranked the cable back up so it
wouldn't swing while driving. After getting the original tire back on, I
went to return the spare tire. When I tried to crank down the cable /
hanger again, it only came down about 3 inches. I removed the assembly and
tried to free it by lubing it and cranking it back and forth, but with no
luck. The only thing I can figure is because there was no weight on the
end, the cable got wrapped back around the spindle inside the case (which is
a sealed unit). Now it doesn't go either way when cranking.

Appreciate any suggestions before I go the the dealer to get a new one. ( I
don't want to leave the tire in the rear compartment.

Thanks

Ken


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:19:05 EDT
From: AskewKB aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - PSD Warranty? Is it 100k?

Regarding the 100K Warranty, I recently purchased a used 99 F250 with the
PSD. The dealer told me that Ford provided a bumper to bumper warranty for
36,000 miles and that the engine was under warranty for 100,000 miles. I was
told that this did not include any components (ie., AC compressor,
alternators, water pumps, etc.). Since my truck already had some miles on it
I elected to purchase the extended bumper to bumper warranty. With proper
maintenance I believe the chances of a problem with the PSD are very remote
as compared to the many other components.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:42:48 -0500
From: "Charles Abraham"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - PSD Warranty? Is it 100k?

Its 36K or three years "bumper-to-bumper", then kicking-in immediately after this

one ends is a 100K - two year, that covers the diesel engine and its components
such as the turbo unit. However, attached to this is a $100 deductible; still
cheap
considering the repair cost of say the turbo-charger.

Charles.

AskewKB aol.com wrote:

> Regarding the 100K Warranty, I recently purchased a used 99 F250 with the
> PSD. The dealer told me that Ford provided a bumper to bumper warranty for
> 36,000 miles and that the engine was under warranty for 100,000 miles. I was
> told that this did not include any components (ie., AC compressor,
> alternators, water pumps, etc.). Since my truck already had some miles on it
> I elected to purchase the extended bumper to bumper warranty. With proper
> maintenance I believe the chances of a problem with the PSD are very remote
> as compared to the many other components.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:57:34 -0700
From: Brian K Moberg
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up

I had a similar expirence with my '98 F-150. I was able to free the unit
but I found that the only way to wind down the cable successfully was to
keep downward tension on it with one hand while cranking with the other
hand.

Brian




>Got the first flat on my '96 the other day and had to use the spare.
>I used
>Ford's handy gloves that were located near the jack, and used the rod
>to
>crank down the spare tire from it's perch under the rear luggage
>compartment. I removed the spare, then cranked the cable back up so
>it
>wouldn't swing while driving. After getting the original tire back
>on, I
>went to return the spare tire. When I tried to crank down the cable
>/
>hanger again, it only came down about 3 inches. I removed the
>assembly and
>tried to free it by lubing it and cranking it back and forth, but with
>no
>luck. The only thing I can figure is because there was no weight on
>the
>end, the cable got wrapped back around the spindle inside the case
>(which is
>a sealed unit). Now it doesn't go either way when cranking.
>
>Appreciate any suggestions before I go the the dealer to get a new
>one. ( I
>don't want to leave the tire in the rear compartment.
>
>Thanks
>
>Ken
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:19:46 -0500
From: "Jack"
Subject: FTE 97up - Muth mirrors and fog light kit

If anyone is interested I'm selling the Muth signal mirrors and OEM fog
light kit for my 1999 F150. I've sold my truck back to my dealer b/c I
unexpectedly received a company vehicle this week.

I just put the lights and mirrors on in June so they are almost new. I have
both original boxes so they can be shipped safely.

They can be bought separately if you wish.

I paid $200 for the mirrors and $333 for the fog light kit. Fog lights come
with all wiring and lower valance with or w/o tow hooks (I have both).

Make me an offer and the highest offer gets it! I'll ship it this weekend
b/c I have to return the truck on Tuesday 8/31/99.

Any questions please email me.

Send questions and offers to JBowell msn.com

Thanks
Jack

P.S. No loss on the deal either b/c trucks are hot in my area.



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:59:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sandman
Subject: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Did anyone see this URL? http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/daily_posting.htm

Looks like ford is going after all the websites and shutting them down,
hopefully this one isn't on the list. That URL is interesting though, you
can see specs on the 2003 F series lineup.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:19:27 -0400
From: kpayne ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Sandman wrote:
>
> Did anyone see this URL? http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/daily_posting.htm
>
> Looks like ford is going after all the websites and shutting them down,
> hopefully this one isn't on the list. That URL is interesting though, you
> can see specs on the 2003 F series lineup.
>

Please don't read more into this than there is. Ford is NOT
going after all the web sites and shutting them down. The
other two web sites that BlueOvalNews mentions as being shut
down are web sites that BlueOvalNews operated in the past.
Every time they get busted, they re-open using another name.

The letter from Ford was pretty clear about why they are
seek an injunction:

a. Use of Ford trademarks on the site. BlueOvalNews' main
page has Ford's logo on it.

b. Conversion of Ford property. BlueOvalNews has take internal
Ford documents and on several occasions, published them on
the web.

c. Interference with Ford contractual relations with its employees.
Ford employees are bound by non-disclosure. BlueOvalNews is
getting its information from Ford employees who are ignoring
their non-disclosure clauses.

Personally, I've never agreed with the way BlueOvalNews has
conducted itself. Publishing internal memos and documents from
another company is, IMHO, unethical and is nothing more than
industrial espionage. Don't you think GM reads that site to
get an inside scoop? It can certainly have a negative impact
on Ford.

The news, which is what BlueOvalNews claims to provide, is
great, and is protected by the Constitution. Internal spying,
however, is a completely different thing. Would it be
constitutional for you to sneak into my home, take my diary
and publish it on the Internet? Heck no! So what's the
difference?

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:53:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sandman
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I heard about this earlier from a
friend and the way it sounded was like they are shutting down all Ford
related sites. Anyways, thanks for clearing that up for me Ken, its good
to know that it is not like it sounds.




On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 kpayne ford-trucks.com wrote:

> Please don't read more into this than there is. Ford is NOT
> going after all the web sites and shutting them down. The
> other two web sites that BlueOvalNews mentions as being shut
> down are web sites that BlueOvalNews operated in the past.
> Every time they get busted, they re-open using another name.
>
> The letter from Ford was pretty clear about why they are
> seek an injunction:
>
> a. Use of Ford trademarks on the site. BlueOvalNews' main
> page has Ford's logo on it.
>
> b. Conversion of Ford property. BlueOvalNews has take internal
> Ford documents and on several occasions, published them on
> the web.
>
> c. Interference with Ford contractual relations with its employees.
> Ford employees are bound by non-disclosure. BlueOvalNews is
> getting its information from Ford employees who are ignoring
> their non-disclosure clauses.
>
> Personally, I've never agreed with the way BlueOvalNews has
> conducted itself. Publishing internal memos and documents from
> another company is, IMHO, unethical and is nothing more than
> industrial espionage. Don't you think GM reads that site to
> get an inside scoop? It can certainly have a negative impact
> on Ford.
>
> The news, which is what BlueOvalNews claims to provide, is
> great, and is protected by the Constitution. Internal spying,
> however, is a completely different thing. Would it be
> constitutional for you to sneak into my home, take my diary
> and publish it on the Internet? Heck no! So what's the
> difference?
>
> Ken Payne
> Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:27:04 -0400
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Well, it would be constitutional if you, your wife or kids gave me your
diary and allowed me to publish it! BlueOvalNews never admitted to going
into Fords "house". Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford employee,
not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!

Keith


- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews


> Sandman wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone see this URL? http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/daily_posting.htm
> >
> > Looks like ford is going after all the websites and shutting them down,
> > hopefully this one isn't on the list. That URL is interesting though,
you
> > can see specs on the 2003 F series lineup.
> >
>
> Please don't read more into this than there is. Ford is NOT
> going after all the web sites and shutting them down. The
> other two web sites that BlueOvalNews mentions as being shut
> down are web sites that BlueOvalNews operated in the past.
> Every time they get busted, they re-open using another name.
>
> The letter from Ford was pretty clear about why they are
> seek an injunction:
>
> a. Use of Ford trademarks on the site. BlueOvalNews' main
> page has Ford's logo on it.
>
> b. Conversion of Ford property. BlueOvalNews has take internal
> Ford documents and on several occasions, published them on
> the web.
>
> c. Interference with Ford contractual relations with its employees.
> Ford employees are bound by non-disclosure. BlueOvalNews is
> getting its information from Ford employees who are ignoring
> their non-disclosure clauses.
>
> Personally, I've never agreed with the way BlueOvalNews has
> conducted itself. Publishing internal memos and documents from
> another company is, IMHO, unethical and is nothing more than
> industrial espionage. Don't you think GM reads that site to
> get an inside scoop? It can certainly have a negative impact
> on Ford.
>
> The news, which is what BlueOvalNews claims to provide, is
> great, and is protected by the Constitution. Internal spying,
> however, is a completely different thing. Would it be
> constitutional for you to sneak into my home, take my diary
> and publish it on the Internet? Heck no! So what's the
> difference?
>
> Ken Payne
> Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:42:17 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

I don't want to turn this list into a debate for this issue,
but you are incorrect.

Your example is "The fruit of the poisonous tree". It is
indeed illegal to publish known stolen goods, just as it
is illegal to resell known stolen goods. And before you say
BluoOvalNews did not know they were stolen, they don't
have to, the law says that if a "reasonable person" would
assume this, than you are guilty.

Steve D'Amelio
Systems Administrator
CVS/Pharmacy
1 CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com

> ----------
> Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
> the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford
> employee,
> not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
>
> Keith
>
>
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:41:27 -0400
From: kpayne ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Keith Veren wrote:
>
> Well, it would be constitutional if you, your wife or kids gave me your
> diary and allowed me to publish it! BlueOvalNews never admitted to going
> into Fords "house". Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
> the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford employee,
> not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
>
> Keith
>

If the babysitter gives the diary to someone, she as an employee,
cannot give that person the right to publish the diary unless
I, as the owner, says she can. She does not own the diary and
therefore cannot assign rights. Both she, and the publisher (since
they know she doesn't own the diary), can be held liable.

Those documents belong to Ford. Ford holds the copyrights.
Blueovalnews published the documents without permission
from the copyright holder. The Ford employee does not own
the documents, Ford does. The employee cannot assign copyrights
of the documents to an outside agent unless the employee has
been authorized to do so (ie, PR guy). The employee should
be found and fired.

Blueovalnews is two-faced. They put notices on their site
saying that Ford employees should abide by their non-disclosure
agreements and then they post articles that start off like
this: "we obtained this document from sources inside Ford
".

For the most part, I like the content on Blueovalnews, but I
cannot condone content via corporate espionage and copyright
theft. How can this be unexpected? They stated about two
months ago that Ford was aware of leaks and was upset about it.

Ken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:56:06 -0500
From: "David Moore"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

I partially agree. But on TOO many occasions internal documents have been
hidden that were "leaked" and that subsequently caused an injustice to be
exposed. For example - the Ford Pinto, the GM truck gas tanks, etc. Plus
every episode of 60 minutes has some "internal memo" from some major
corporation or another. That said - I think the internal information with
the exception of the Cobra mistakes listed on Blue Oval is a bit much and
does lean toward infringing on Fords rights to some level of privacy. It is
great reading - I really liked the part about the "baby Powerstroke".

- -david

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com
[mailto:owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of D'Amelio, Stephen
M.
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:42 PM
To: '97up-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews


I don't want to turn this list into a debate for this issue,
but you are incorrect.

Your example is "The fruit of the poisonous tree". It is
indeed illegal to publish known stolen goods, just as it
is illegal to resell known stolen goods. And before you say
BluoOvalNews did not know they were stolen, they don't
have to, the law says that if a "reasonable person" would
assume this, than you are guilty.

Steve D'Amelio
Systems Administrator
CVS/Pharmacy
1 CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com

> ----------
> Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
> the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford
> employee,
> not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
>
> Keith
>
>
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:59:16 -0400
From: Jean Marc Chartier
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up

"Kenneth J. Nagy" wrote:
>
> Here's an FYI for Explorer owners.
>
> Got the first flat on my '96 the other day and had to use the spare. I used
> Ford's handy gloves that were located near the jack, and used the rod to
> crank down the spare tire from it's perch under the rear luggage
> compartment. I removed the spare, then cranked the cable back up so it
> wouldn't swing while driving. After getting the original tire back on, I
> went to return the spare tire. When I tried to crank down the cable /
> hanger again, it only came down about 3 inches. I removed the assembly and
> tried to free it by lubing it and cranking it back and forth, but with no
> luck. The only thing I can figure is because there was no weight on the
> end, the cable got wrapped back around the spindle inside the case (which is
> a sealed unit). Now it doesn't go either way when cranking.
>
> Appreciate any suggestions before I go the the dealer to get a new one. ( I
> don't want to leave the tire in the rear compartment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ken
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Ken,

Have you tried pulling while cranking. The weight of the
tire is what adds tension to the wire so I will lower while
cranking.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:18:29 -0400
From: "Kenneth J. Nagy"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Spare tire cable system heads-up

Yes. Tried that. But I think after trying to crank it down "unloaded" the
first time, the cable was already caught up inside. Ford wants $59 for a
new one, so I'll take this as a lesson learned.

Thanks,
Ken

>
> Ken,
>
> Have you tried pulling while cranking. The weight of the
> tire is what adds tension to the wire so I will lower while
> cranking.
>
> Regards
>
> Jean Marc Chartier
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:23:54 -0500
From: "David Moore"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Ahh.. But what about if she "happens" upon it - opens it up and reads that
you confess to a rape or murder or other illegal act? I would then think
that she is compelled by law to tell. Of course should it just have the
boring exploits of someone's life then she has no rights to distribute.

David



- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com
[mailto:owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
kpayne ford-trucks.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:41 PM
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews


Keith Veren wrote:
>
> Well, it would be constitutional if you, your wife or kids gave me your
> diary and allowed me to publish it! BlueOvalNews never admitted to going
> into Fords "house". Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
> the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford
employee,
> not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
>
> Keith
>

If the babysitter gives the diary to someone, she as an employee,
cannot give that person the right to publish the diary unless
I, as the owner, says she can. She does not own the diary and
therefore cannot assign rights. Both she, and the publisher (since
they know she doesn't own the diary), can be held liable.

Those documents belong to Ford. Ford holds the copyrights.
Blueovalnews published the documents without permission
from the copyright holder. The Ford employee does not own
the documents, Ford does. The employee cannot assign copyrights
of the documents to an outside agent unless the employee has
been authorized to do so (ie, PR guy). The employee should
be found and fired.

Blueovalnews is two-faced. They put notices on their site
saying that Ford employees should abide by their non-disclosure
agreements and then they post articles that start off like
this: "we obtained this document from sources inside Ford
".

For the most part, I like the content on Blueovalnews, but I
cannot condone content via corporate espionage and copyright
theft. How can this be unexpected? They stated about two
months ago that Ford was aware of leaks and was upset about it.

Ken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:45:39 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

> Ahh.. But what about if she "happens" upon it - opens it up and reads
> that
> you confess to a rape or murder or other illegal act? I would then think
> that she is compelled by law to tell.
>
Yup,

But telling your local Police vs. telling the
Boston Globe are two different things...


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:12 -0400
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Yes, however, Ford must make an effort to protect the memos. For example,
if Ford made 100,000 copies of a "secret" internal memo, and faxed them to
all employees (even accidentally wrong numbers) and kept extra copies just
sitting around and then threw them away in the regular trash, then a leak
would probably fall under "fair-use" or even public domain. Now, if Ford
wrote COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL on their internal memos, and exercised
appropriate document control, a judge would have no trouble convicting an
employee and the publisher for copyright violations. Remember, fair-use is
still very broad. If it wasn't, we would all be in trouble on this list for
each "reply to sender" e-mail in which we quote the previous e-mail,
sometimes with author name, sometimes without, but in either case without
author permission.

Keith



- ----- Original Message -----
From: D'Amelio, Stephen M.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews


> I don't want to turn this list into a debate for this issue,
> but you are incorrect.
>
> Your example is "The fruit of the poisonous tree". It is
> indeed illegal to publish known stolen goods, just as it
> is illegal to resell known stolen goods. And before you say
> BluoOvalNews did not know they were stolen, they don't
> have to, the law says that if a "reasonable person" would
> assume this, than you are guilty.
>
> Steve D'Amelio
> Systems Administrator
> CVS/Pharmacy
> 1 CVS Drive
> Woonsocket, RI 02895
> 401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
> mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com
>
> > ----------
> > Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
> > the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford
> > employee,
> > not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:06:14 -0700
From: "Steve J. Hodson"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews

Legal Schmegal. Regardless of who is breaking the letter of the law here
the Blue Oval publishers should feel some moral obligation against
publishing proprietary information. I hope FoMoCo strings up whoever spied
and the publishers as well.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Veren
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews


>Well, it would be constitutional if you, your wife or kids gave me your
>diary and allowed me to publish it! BlueOvalNews never admitted to going
>into Fords "house". Your analogy is a tad off. However, I do understand
>the issue of publishing industry secrets; however, it is the Ford employee,
>not the publisher, that is committing the wrongdoing!
>
>Keith
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:19 PM
>Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BlueOvalNews
>
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>> >
>> > Did anyone see this URL? http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/daily_posting.htm
>> >
>> > Looks like ford is going after all the websites and shutting them down,
>> > hopefully this one isn't on the list. That URL is interesting though,
>you
>> > can see specs on the 2003 F series lineup.
>> >
>>
>> Please don't read more into this than there is. Ford is NOT
>> going after all the web sites and shutting them down. The
>> other two web sites that BlueOvalNews mentions as being shut
>> down are web sites that BlueOvalNews operated in the past.
>> Every time they get busted, they re-open using another name.
>>
>> The letter from Ford was pretty clear about why they are
>> seek an injunction:
>>
>> a. Use of Ford trademarks on the site. BlueOvalNews' main
>> page has Ford's logo on it.
>>
>> b. Conversion of Ford property. BlueOvalNews has take internal
>> Ford documents and on several occasions, published them on
>> the web.
>>
>> c. Interference with Ford contractual relations with its employees.
>> Ford employees are bound by non-disclosure. BlueOvalNews is
>> getting its information from Ford employees who are ignoring
>> their non-disclosure clauses.
>>
>> Personally, I've never agreed with the way BlueOvalNews has
>> conducted itself. Publishing internal memos and documents from
>> another company is, IMHO, unethical and is nothing more than
>> industrial espionage. Don't you think GM reads that site to
>> get an inside scoop? It can certainly have a negative impact
>> on Ford.
>>
>> The news, which is what BlueOvalNews claims to provide, is
>> great, and is protected by the Constitution. Internal spying,
>> however, is a completely different thing. Would it be
>> constitutional for you to sneak into my home, take my diary
>> and publish it on the Internet? Heck no! So what's the
>> difference?
>>
>> Ken Payne
>> Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
>> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:34:27 EDT
From: CNTRYF150 ....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.