And you pretty much hit the nail on the head about why I came up with GCodeClean.
For one large project I used ESTLCam to generate my GCode paths from an image. The resulting GCode was a lot 0.1mm G1 commands. During the cutting I was getting around 1mm per second speed (very slow). The bottleneck was the arduino, which could only handle around 10 GCode commands per second.
When i last looked at this forumās description, it said āA community driven, open source projectā¦ā
Isnāt this project already funded by backers like me and you? Iām asking for future users
Iāve noticed a trend among certain frequent users (in desperate need for validation) to trash the work of vendors, even going so far as to post outright lies, but what strikes me the most is that it now comes from the Bar itself
Makermade did speed up the kit. Bar (and every other user) knows that just increasing the speed in the software will result in the sled stalling and triggering the infamous āsled cannot keep upā¦ā alarm, yet he still chooses to disparage its work.
Heās not disparaging his work, Heās disagreeing with the new company owning the
term āMaslowā, which would require that Bar pay them for permission to use the
name on the Maslow 4
He approved their use of āmaslow likeā or similar for their machine, it was only
after the two corporate transitions where the 3rd owner is claiming ownership of
the term Maslow that there is a problem and Bar is objecting.
David Lang
From googleā¦
"You can lose a mark through abandonment. A mark will be considered abandoned if you stop using it for three consecutive years and you have no intent to resume its use.
You can also lose a mark through improper licensing or improper assignment. Trademarks can also be lost if you license a trademark without specifying adequate control or supervision, or if you assign a trademark to someone else without also selling that person or entity the corresponding assets."
I believe Bar made it clear in the video that MM raised the price over his preferred amount, but he remained silent. It is accurate to say that there is an acknowledgement of abandonment or a failure to police the trademark as required by trademark regulationsā¦
Iām not a lawyer, so take my comments on this with a grain of salt.
From googleā¦
"You can lose a mark through abandonment. A mark will be considered abandoned if you stop using it for three consecutive years and you have no intent to resume its use.
You can also lose a mark through improper licensing or improper assignment. Trademarks can also be lost if you license a trademark without specifying adequate control or supervision, or if you assign a trademark to someone else without also selling that person or entity the corresponding assets."
I believe Bar made it clear in the video that MM raised the price over his preferred amount, but he remained silent. It is accurate to say that there is an acknowledgement of abandonment or a failure to police the trademark as required by trademark regulationsā¦
was āthe preferred priceā a licence requirement? or just a preference?
And when a trademark is lost, that usually just means that anyone can use it,
not that someone else can claim ownerships of the trademark (the initial user
doesnāt become liable to someone else for using the name they created, they just
lose the ability to prevent others from using it)
I donāt think the issue here is about makermade using the term maslow, but
rather them claiming to own the term and being able to prevent Bar from using
it.
David Lang
I am very much not a lawyer, but Bar has been using the Maslow name for these forums continuously. I wonder if that is enough to avoid abandonment claims.
That is not how trademarks work I suggest you to read more about this matter before posting again
Personally, I couldnāt care less about this matter, I just wanted to point out that Barās statement that āall @makermade did was tweak the software to speed it upā¦ā is, to put it bluntly, a lie aimed to disparage their work
I noticed that the Maslow home page has been edited and no longer states open source, I would recommend that wikipwdia be edited as well, as it still says open source
P.S. Someone just directed me via Reddit to an interesting post by the editor of Make magazine, who interviewed Bar and the two original MakerMade guys.
āā¦we interviewed Bar (the creator of maslow) and the makermade folks for the magazine a few issues back. Bar said that Maker Made was taking the project on as he was doneā
I was trying to keep this out of the forums, but it seems to have spoiled over into the forums, so it deserves some explanation.
The first seven minutes of that YouTube video is mostly false, misleading, and defamatory. There is no ānew companyā or ātwo corporate transitions.ā Long story short, MakerMadeās former CEO could not pay their debts to me as their supplier - so I ended up with quite a bit of MakerMade assets - including the inventory. One of my related companies is a member of Maker Made LLC. The three founding members (the two stick men in the video + me) recently voted to release some assets, trademarks, website etc - in exchange for a partial debt reduction.
The products on Amazon were all put in place by the previous management and have been on Amazon since July 2019 under the leadership of the above-mentioned CEO. All that content in the Amazon listing was done at that CEOās direction - including going against whatever deal he made with Bar back in 2018/2019. I have not touched that Amazon listing - so the former CEO is 100% responsible for the images and content within Amazon.
When some (not all, yet) assets were transferred to me, it was outsourced to a marketing agency that runs those Amazon listings, and the content that was on Amazon, I was diligently working with Bar on how we could have changed the language and asked him in two separate emails to furnish some of the prior correspondence he had with the other two partners. Bar did not reply to those emails. Instead, he posted that video - making this whole thing very public. Iāve asked for it to be removed.
Additionally, the former MakerMade CEO stole much of MakerMadeās intellectual property for a project that Sourcery has been developing alongside MakerMade since early 2019. He was terminated as the CEO since he was double-dealing and actively working against MakerMade and me - while pursuing in the background his agenda with other MakerMade contractors and employees. Yes, some employees and contractors even have NDAās and Confidentiality Agreements. So now there are intellectual property and trade secret theft claims that MakerMade is pursuing. Itās not something Iām thrilled about, but it is what it is. You cannot control the evil and greed of some of these people. Thatās their nature.
We have lawyers involved in all the litigation and with corporate transactions, including the theft of corporate intellectual property, trademarks, asset transfers, debt reduction, etcā¦ much of this is over my head, so I let Bar know before he posted that YouTube video that I was going to have my attorney (not the MakerMade attorney) review. When I requested some of those email exchanges and other information - I was ignored for whatever reason. I would still very much like to work through these issues. Bar knows how to get in touch with me.
Thanks,
āt.j. weber
tj@makermade.com (also tjw@sourcery.com as the supplier)
(As a side note, when the MakerMade assets are transferred, the new company will be makerhub LLC - but for now, except for the inventory - Maker Made LLC is still operating - and will continue to operate as an IP holding company while litigation is pursued against the former CEO & employees.)
Iāve gotten multiple emails threatening to sue meā¦I want no part in any of it.
MakerMadeās internal NDAs, confidentiality agreements, and lawsuits over ātheft of intellectual propertyā could all have been avoided if MakerMade had made itās designs open source.
The Maslow CNC trademark is the only intellectual property that Maslow CNC has ever claimed. I spoke with a trademark lawyer and he said this is the most clear cut case of infringement heās ever seen, that the name and logo have clearly been in use here in the forums and on our website the entire time, and that it should get taken care of pretty easily.
I wish everyone at MakerMade the best of luck in suing each-other, just leave me out of it please. Iām going to focus on building the best and most affordable large format CNC routers that I can.
That you should do because if it were not for you and the Maslow community, MakerMade would not be around today. On the other hand, MakerMade has sold thousands of Maslow CNC or Maslow-variant kits, which has helped build the Maslow CNC community. We even gave back and actively promoted your Kickstarter. To get what? A very public, embarrassing, and factually incorrect video to all your backers and the very community we helped build over those five years.
An unfortunate situation with MakerMade has left me with a huge hole in my pocket. Still, Iām confident itās streamlined going forward and will succeed - open source or not - with the products being developed that were stolen by the former CEO and employees/contractors.
If Bar Smith / Maslow CNC LLC / Bread and Roses Machine Company / whatever it was called in the past/present/future wish to avoid litigation and being dragged into the MakerMade mess - itās straightforward - retract the defamatory video and plainly, simply let people know weāre now separate companies. Iām not out to get you for a product that helped build the MakerMade brand. Multiple times, Iāve tried to extend my hand for a handshake, but this keeps going in circles. I hope this is the last time this must be addressed publicly.
Thanks,
āt.j. weber
tj@makermade.com
Multiple times youāve reached out to offer to be the supplier for Maslow, which given how that went for the last people who took that offer is a hard pass.
To the best of my knowledge everything that I said in the video is true. If you want people to understand that we are (and have always been) separate companies stop using my trademark thatās the whole point of having a trademark 
ā¦I think that would clear up a lot of the confusionā¦and if you want to threaten to sue me Iād rather it be in public.
Interesting take on trademark. I understand about abandoning in the light of patents. That is simple, the 20 year monopoly enforcement right is lost and the infringing ability disappears so it is public information. It can neither be repatented nor enforced because it is no longer novel.
What is unclear to me is the ability of some other partyās ability to assume the trademark after the abandonment. If the mark is diluted and not able to be enforced, then how does that give anyone else the right to just take it? That would be like Target assuming Adidas because they sold the shoes. Perhaps that is too simple because there is some manufacturing an continuity involvedā¦ clearly not a simple thing. That seems like since the Hudson car company stopped making cars 70 years ago (or whatever time frame) that I can go start my own company and name it Hudson and I can, after active use, assume that mark.
So you are saying because he licensed others to sell kits that he abandoned his trademark. How does the ownership transfer? Is it like commonlaw marriage where after so much time it is all the sudden valid. Possession is 9/10ths? Iām not looking for a fight, I really am curious how this works especially if you have experience with it. If you are just hoping the google context is applicable in this case, then that is perhaps a stretch though it may seem intuitive.
That being the case and if this is valid for them to have the trademark, then wouldnāt eastbay and Metal also have claim to it in the exact same fashion since they also continue to sell the product?
They donāt have any right to the trademark 
A trademark can be considered abandoned if itās not used in commerce, but commerce isnāt just selling products. For example a charitable foundation can have a trademark without ever selling anything.
It just means if you stop using a trademark entirely it goes away and someone else would be free to file their own paperwork to claim it. You have to pay a renewal fee every five years to maintain a trademark (which we did last year). I assume that if the fees arenāt paid it goes up for grabs?
Edit: According to the lawyer that I talked to having the trademark actively on our website and forums is textbook usage
If the fees arenāt paid, it isnāt up for grabs based on my read of the law when I filed for trademark. My understanding (may be incomplete) is that when registered, you can sue for damages in court. When you are no longer registered, you canāt collect damages, but you can still enforce the right of use and block others from using it. That is why the idea of assumption and commercial use specifics are of interest to me.
Is that because of the copyright? My friend who designed the logo reached out to me to ask if he could help, and he reminded me that he signed over the copyright for the logo to me when I paid him for it. I believe that copyright is forever regardless of any filings or use, right?
Iām not sure about copyright specifically other than my googling. Iāve had attorney conversations about patents and trademarks, but not copyrights. Interested to learn though. I do know that Disney pushed really hard at the brink of the mickey mouse copyright expiration to get that changed so they could keep their cash cow and they were successful.
Copyright isnāt forever, but it sure does feel like it.
And most people donāt understand what copyright is, although thereās a clue in the word. It is the right to make copies of something, which means that it is a right that āpublishersā of something would want.
Trademarks are generally superior to copyright in that they tend to be broader in applicability. Although I aināt an IP lawyer, so please seek your own counsel ā¦
copyright by individuals is life of the creator + 95 years.
copyright by corporations (work for hire, like the logo) is a flat 95 years
I am not a lawyer, and I may be off slightly for the numbers, but Iām close.
But copyright on a logo used for trademark identification doesnāt give others
the right to use the logo just because the copyright expires. Trademarks can
last forever if you keep using and paying the registration.
David Lang
Bar,
Iāll ask again the same thing I asked you precisely two weeks ago in an email I sent three weeks agoā¦ and Iāll put it simply:
Exactly what federally registered trademark number is Maslow CNC LLC claiming?
All my patent and trademark attorney sees are names and logos that are (or were) part of GitHub GPL-3, The Unlicense, or a modified ShareAlike v4. Even the Mechanics/frame design updated by you seven years ago to allow for ācommercial useā by removing language for āNon-Commercialā use, see: updated license to CC BY-SA Ā· MaslowCNC/Mechanics@63441f6 Ā· GitHub
Another point made by my attorney (aside from you not giving me any registered trademark number) is that Maslow CNC is āopen sourceā in nature, and MakerMade has been using it for 5+ years, and we must cite the source of the project. This means we canāt just steal an open-source project and consider it our own - no matter how it is licensed. So MakerMade must credit the Maslow CNC project. I defer to my attorney on all the license/copyright/trademark/patent stuff since itās not my expertise at all.
On a broader note, I was engaging with you to try to resolve this if you had only forwarded a few basic requests - any communications/correspondence from previous agreements with the other two owners would have greatly helped. I was willing to honor any previous agreements made - even if they were not valid and enforceable from a legal standpoint. However, instead of working with me to correct it, you made it public, and now MakerMade has to defend itself from the false public allegations. I privately requested a retraction before it became widely viewed and commented on. Now we are here. You know how to get in touch with me. Your attorney may get in touch with me.
Yes, I have. And my offers were at literally no cost to you if needed because I could give back to you and the community. Or if you wanted a partnership on the ground in China, I could have been there too. There are no hurt feelings whatsoever. The former MakerMade CEO came to me - I did not approach him to be their supplier. I was challenged by the project, and instead of charging my standard product development fees - I took a small slice of founder equity in MakerMade.
Given how much the Maslow CNC has helped MakerMade, I thought it was a good thing to help you. I have not given up on MakerMade, but maybe I should have when the former CEO began running the company to the ground. I should have done it like any other Chinese supplier and got payment upfront. That mistake is on me.
I can understand why you would make a hard pass at that, given many hearsay versions and gossip of the MakerMade past. Please realize that despite the infighting between the other partners and the mismanagement of the former CEO, I continued to supply products and build Makermade and the Maslow community without giving up.
Iām not entirely sure where you are getting your information. There are multiple sides to every story. However, besides the two other MakerMade owners - Iām still here and continuing the supply chain and other product development. The other MakerMade partner, whom I highly respect as a person and with whom I still communicate, has moved on to other projects. He has become a good friend, mentor, and advisor despite stepping away from the day-to-day MakerMade business - primarily due to the greediness and mismanagement of the previous CEO.
Thanks,
āt.j. weber
tj@makermade.com