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

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, I have never unlocked any Brinks panel for any end user.
There is no point. If the consumer wants to make the slighest change to
the system, they would have to send the board back, which makes no
economic sense. I always suggest to the consumer to replace the system
with something that is both keypad & remote programmable.

Since I don't charge anything for my advice, most consumers after a
reasonable amount of time, send me their unwanted Brinks junk as a thank
you.

Jim Rojas




Robert L Bass wrote:
>> They can huff and puff all they like.
>
> You're going to wipe the floor with them.  BTW, as to the tortious interference claim, that's also bogus.  Nowhere do they even
> allege that you have enticed any current customer to breach a contract with them.
>
> Erasing or over-writing firmware does not constitute copyright infringement any more than burning one of their manuals.  Since
> you're not copying and distributing the firmware there's no infringement.  If I understand things correctly, you receive a panel
> with the firmware intact, erase or modify the lockout code and send it back to it's (presumptive) owner.  That isn't a copyright
> infringement either since you're not holding the thing for sale.
>
> The allegation that by reselling a panel you are infringing a copyright on the "firmware" therein is also bogus since it is integral
> to the hardware.  That would be like Ford saying that by reselling it's cars you've stolen the copyrighted firmware in the engine
> computer.
>
> The biggest problem for you is going to be hiring a Texas lawyer and/or going there occasionally.  No one in his right mind would
> want to go there (let alone live there).
>
>