Re: Brinks vs. Tech-man.com

["Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xbW0h.208613$1T2.183113@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Crash Gordon wrote:
>> Wow, they're setting you up. I hope you are NOT responding on your own,
>> but with an attorney.
>
>
>> The copyright issue will be the nasty one. The rest is kinda bullshit.
>
>
> Only if he charges for the manuals.  They're freely available as PDF's all
> over Internet and Usenet (heck, I'd even post 'em on
> http://www.yoursecuritysource.com if I had 'em).  As to Brink's "owning"
> the equipment...  The agreement is between the homeowner that arranges the
> installation and Brinks.  If the homeowner sells the house (and Brinks
> fails to remove the equipment within a reasonable amount of time), it's
> considered "abandoned".  If the new homeowner wants to take over the
> equipment, that's their business.  In other words, the contract does not
> (and cannot) bind the new homeowner to using Brinks to "service" any
> equipment left on the premises.
>
> If Jim has come into possession of a Brinks programmer and decides to
> "rent" it out, that's his business.  It's up to Brinks to provide proof of
> actual ownership of said programmer (they'd have to charge every employee
> that failed to return one with theft to make it stick).  Their "logo" on
> the equipment has no more weight regarding "proof of ownership" than
> "DSC's", "Maytag's", "Zenith's", "Ford's", etc., but "Property of Brinks"
> (with a "return if found" address or toll-free phone number) certainly
> would.
>
> The Patent is certainly valid, but that doesn't infer ownership of the
> equipment either, only the "technology" behind it and the ability to
> produce (manufacture) more.

So if I'm to understand your response correctly, you're saying "F--K YOU"
Brinks. You just decided to drag the response out a bit :-))