|
Posted by Doug on November 1, 2007, 1:02 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Since Jim didn't respond in a timely manner to prevent a default judgment
and didn't show to the contempt hearing it matters little whether the claims
are valid or not, he had the opportunity to refute them and he chose not to.
The bottom line is that he should either have had adequate legal
representation
and played the game according to the rules or he should have thrown in his
hand when
he received the original cease & desist request.
I wish Jim the very best, but I fear he is committing financial suicide with
his current actions or inaction's.
Doug
--
> Apparently the Texas court has seen fit to hold Jim formally in contempt.
> The severe repercussions they mentioned in the Order to Appear have no
> doubt been set into motion. Jim will be "forced" to make an appearance
> (probably sooner than later). I find it interesting that one paragraph in
> the Order granting the Motion for Contempt states:
>
> "Evidence submitted by Brink's shows by clear and convincing evidence that
> methods of resetting and circumventing lockout codes on Brink's control
> panels
> have been disseminated through Defendant's website. Additionally, content
> from
> Brink's installation manuals has been disseminated through Defendant's
> website.
> The same information has also been disseminated through a third party's
> website
> with Defendant's encouragement. All of these disseminations clearly
> violate
> the Preliminary Injunction."
>
> I'm not sure what "clear and convincing evidence" they speak of. Brink's
> control panels are only slightly different from the ones I have used (in
> fact they're made by the same companies) and for someone to post the
> installation manuals is really no threat to me. I can demonstrate just as
> clearly that Brinks panels are nothing more than rebadged (and dumbed
> down) GE and Honeywell units. Even the "so called" Brinks installation
> manuals clearly show the copyright (and "Brinks" isn't mentioned).
>
> Jim, FWIW, I feel for ya bud. I'm only "one" of what could become many
> "third party" sites that have decided to distribute "Tech Help!". I'm not
> doing it for money or for "glory". I'm doing it because I believe the
> program is a useful tool for *any* technician to be able to have at his
> disposal. I'm also not doing this because Jim is "encouraging" me to do
> so.
>
> Once again, I'm publicly requesting anyone at "Brinks" or a member of
> their legal team to contact me and provide me with the location of any
> Brinks intellectual property within the Tech Help! software. I know you
> are monitoring this Newsgroup. My email is feolson at yoursecuritysource
> dot com. For your information, I derive zero income from
> http://www.yoursecuritysource.com (it simply isn't set up to "sell"
> anything, nor was it intended to do so), so further emails to my hosting
> provider requesting this is a useless pursuit. Until you can clearly show
> me where "Tech Help!" violates Brinks Copyright, or illegally disseminates
> their "Intellectual Property", I will continue to host it.
>
> If anyone else wishes to share their thoughts, please do. If you prefer,
> you can email me privately at the above address or send Jim a note at
> jrojas@tech-man.com.
>
> My thoughts and prayers are with Jim and his family. Good luck, Bro!!
| 
XML site map