Re: Brinks Home Security files Civil Suit against Jim Rojas & www.tech-man.com

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:s4GdnQl5oudmjY7bnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Thank you all for your continued support...
>
> Sorry to hear this, Jim.  I hope you beat them.
>
> The systems which they claim are being
> converted (fancy word for "stolen") by you
> are not in your possession and have never
> been in your possession.  In fact, they have
> all been abandoned (Brinks' SOP) when
> the homeowners stopped paying for
> monitoring.  They *never* go out to
> collect their used systems after they've been
> in place for a while because they know
> they can't sell them again.  Every customer
> wants a new system.

Every Brinks system has a disclaimer ON THE BOX which states the customer
does not own the system, Brinks does

> While they might be able to prevail in the
> matter of the programmers themselves,
> that should not give rise to any significant
> award.  First, they have no idea how
> many programmers you've ever touched.
> Second, the programmers' intrinsic value
> is small.  Third, Brinks might be shown
> to have abandoned them as well unless
> they have sued ex-employees who failed
> to turn them in.  If they made no real
> effort to get them back after allowing
> someone to use them for a time, they
> are abandoned property.

Thank you Perry Mason, however in the real world it's quite a bit different

> If I can be of help let me know.  I have
> numerous ex-Brinks customers as DIY
> clients.  I could send out an email asking
> for comments about their service, why
> they cancelled and whether Brinks tried
> to retrieve the leased systems.  We both
> know what the answers would be.

Any answer would be worthless to this case