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

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

> In regards to the user manuals : In the domain of copyrights, abandonment is recognized as the explicit release of material by a
> copyright holder into the public domain. Publishing it on the internet for however short period of time can be considered such a
> release into the public domain.

In the USA that doesn't constitute abandonent.  Documents and
image files on the Internet retain their copyright protection despite
being made available for public viewing and downloading.

> Found this interesting quote on:
> http://www.alarmsbc.com/NEW1/wwwboard/messages/986.html
>
> "BTW, the Brinks programmer is just an Arrowhead keypad that plugs into a header on the board - there's nothing really complicated
> about it. But, without the manual to go with it, it does you no good anyway. With the programmer and manual, the system is wide
> open to the installer - I've reprogrammed many Brinks 2000's and am currently monitoring several of them. For those of you guys
> out there (by that, I mean installers) that run across Brinks systems and just replace them, it may be worth looking into getting
> a programmer and manual (I had to get mine from a Brinks dealer.) If anyone's interested, I may be able to get my hands on 1 or 2
> more."

If Brinks abandoned the system it belongs to whoever owns
the building.  The new owner can do whatever he wants
with the system, including have it monitored by a competitor.


> The system provides no specifically unique features that are not already available on
> other systems by other manufacturers. It is
> Patented for the ability to monopolize on the product. This is a deliberate breach of the
> anti trust laws and is considered Patent fraud.
>
> Hence: WALKER, INC. v. FOOD MACHINERY,
> 382  U.S. 172 (1965)

This is interesting.  My first thought was that
Brinks' patent couldn't possibly be as weak
as the infamous Food Machinery patent which
involved an outright lie in the application.
However, after reading the Brinks application,
I think it could be knocked off by a decent
attorney, especially one familiar with the alarm
industry.  Following is the claimed uniqueness
of the Brinks keypad:

<< The pseudo alphanumeric display section 34
of the display 30 includes a plurality of possible
outputs to inform the user of system status and
prompt the user during input. In the embodiment
of the display 30 shown in FIG. 3, the alphanumeric
display includes 24 outputs (beginning top left):
"NOT", "READY", "ALL", "ON", "INSTANT", "DOOR
CHIME", "NO AC", "MOTION OFF", "TROUBLE",
"TEST", "LINE CUT", "LOW BATT", "ALARM",
"MEMORY", "AUXILIARY CODES", "CANCELED",
"BYPASS", "ENTER", "MASTER", "1-6", "CALL
800-445-0872", "ZONE#", "NEW", "CODE". Each
of these outputs requires a single signal to display
the output. Although each output appears
alphanumeric to the user, each is in fact generated
by a single one bit digital signal. A suitable display
for the purposes of this invention is a liquid crystal
display because of its low power usage and low
cost." >>

All of that amounts to a description of a fixed English
LCD keypad.  Every manufacturer in the industry
makes at least one model with the very same
features.  There's nothing unique in the Brinks keypad
except that their phone number is one of the fixed
displays.  IOW, their patent is bogus.

Go get 'em, Jim!

> Hope this helps and good luck with your case.
> You may want to consider joining up with
> Brinks system owners and turning it into a
> serious multi million dollar anti trust case...

That would be nice.  :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>