Re: New Brinks v Jim Rojas Update

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You are probably right. I'll wait and see what they do next.

Jim Rojas


Just Looking wrote:
> There is little you have to gain by persisting in the idea that this guy
> cares for you in any way, positively or negatively. This is just how he
> makes a living. He thinks of people like you more akin to the way you think
> of an alarm panel. You know how to turn the alarm on, turn the alarm off,
> and under certain conditions make the alarm squawk, all with little emotion.
> He does the same thing with people. Despite your feelings that he is a poor
> lawyer, he has just shown how good he is by pushing all your buttons, and
> you are the one left squawking. If you truly want to defeat him simply make
> certain that nothing you do becomes a financial resource for him. It's
> really just that simple. When the opportunity for lawyers to make money
> disappears, the lawyers disappear right along with it. Ask any lawyer what
> bothers him the most and not getting paid is at the top of the list, and in
> every space on the list that follows.
> Now if you want to win him over then use his own pleadings against him,
> since he has already made the legal claim that you are an expert at
> reprogramming Brinks' gear. Become an expert witness for Brinks and help him
> ferret out all the dealers that are actually flipping accounts using Brinks'
> gear. He'll make so much money (along with you) he'll even buy you dinner
> after that I bet. And that all will be on Brinks' tab of course. If you want
> you could take all your earnings, donate them to the RNC, and get a spot for
> him to go on a special hunting trip in Texas, with Dick Cheney.
>
> "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4702a46f$0$18962$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 11
>> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>> NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
>> DALLAS DIVISION
>> Brink's Home Security, Inc.,
>> Plaintiff,
>> Case No.: 3: 07 CV 0437-B
>> v.
>> Jim Rojas,
>> Defendant.
>> BRINK'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING
>> PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT JIM ROJAS
>> This involves intentionally tortious acts committed by Defendant Jim
>> Rojas ("Rojas")
>> through which Rojas knowingly harmed Brink's Home Security, Inc.
>> ("Brink's"), whose principal
>> place of business and property are located in Irving, Texas. By virtue
>> of his many intentional
>> activities targeted to Brink's and its property, Rojas should have
>> reasonably anticipated being
>> haled into court in Texas, and accordingly personal jurisdiction exists
>> here.
>> Factual Background
>> Brink's is a leader in the industry of providing alarm systems and
>> security monitoring to
>> homeowners. Brink's principal place of business is located in Irving,
>> Texas. In providing its
>> security systems and services, Brink's uses valuable intellectual
>> property, including patented
>> technology and copyrighted software. Brink's technicians use
>> installation and programming
>> manuals containing trade secrets and a proprietary "programmer" to
>> activate security systems,
>> create settings, and protect these settings through lockout codes.
>> Brink's does not provide these
>> manuals or its programmers to anyone outside of Brink's. Additionally,
>> Brink's does not sell its
>> alarm equipment to its customers but instead requires customers to sigh
>> a "Protective Service
>> Agreement ("PSA") which provides that Brink's will own the equipment
>> installed in the
>> 4593685
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 11
>> customer's house and prohibits a customer from removing, selling, or
>> altering any of the
>> equipment. See Exhibit A (PSA).
>> Rojas operates the Internet website www.tech-man.com (the "Tech-Man
>> Website"),
>> where he offers for sale Brink's equipment, offers to rent Brink's
>> programmers, offers to provide
>> the service of circumventing the lockout codes protecting the settings
>> of Brink's control panels,
>> and offers to buy Brink's equipment and programmers. See Complaint ¶J
>> 17-23, Exs. C-F.
>> Six months before this suit was filed, Brink's notified Rojas of its
>> claims. See Exhibit B
>> (September 6, 2006 Brink's letter). This letter laid out Plaintiff's
>> concerns and claims, cited legal
>> authorities, and provided a sample PSA. Id. Within two hours of
>> receiving Brink's letter, Rojas
>> responded by email, refusing to comply, threatening Brink's, and making
>> unsupported legal
>> arguments. See Exhibit C hereto (September 6, 2006 email from Rojas).
>> In his e-mail response, Rojas expressed familiarity with Brink's and its
>> services,
>> products, contracts, and intellectual property claims. He expressed
>> specific familiarity with
>> Brink's website, and claimed essentially that he had the right to make
>> commercial use of
>> anything that Brink's itself posted on its website (a proposition
>> Brink's believes to be contrary to
>> copyright law). Id. ¶ 1. He asserted, contrary to Brink's letter and its
>> standard PSA Agreement,
>> that Brink's "chooses to abandon" security systems for which Brink's
>> does not continue to
>> provide monitoring services?a factual assertion that could only be made
>> based on familiarity
>> with Brink's business and its former customer relationships all over the
>> country. Id. ¶ 2. He
>> stated that he regularly seeks out and purchases Brink's programmers (a
>> proprietary device), and
>> that he also solicits and receives Brink's equipment, on the order of
>> "maybe 2 boxes [that]
>> contain a great deal of Brinks equipment" per week. Id. ¶ 3 and 7. He
>> stated that he regularly
>> "reprogram[s]" Brink's control boards, despite the anti-circumvention
>> technology contained
>> therein which Brink's believes is protected by 17 USC § 1201, and he
>> asserted "no obligation to
>> follow your client's contract limitations," which his message also
>> expressed familiarity with. Id.
>> 4593685 - 2 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 11
>> ¶ 4. He also expressed familiarity with where and how Brink's has
>> installed new security
>> systems. Id. ¶ 5. Finally, he expressed familiarity with unauthorized
>> use of Brink's systems by
>> "many dealers in the South, like in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina,
>> Tennessee, & Alabama."
>> Id. ¶ 8.
>> Brink's responded with a second letter, responding to Rojas'
>> contentions. See Exhibit D
>> (October 12, 2006 Brink's letter). This letter gave Rojas clear notice
>> of Brink's ownership of all
>> of its programmers and the great majority of its installed equipment. It
>> also provided Rojas with
>> more specific legal authorities and explanations as to the copyright
>> anti-circumvention claim,
>> trade secret misappropriation claims, and patent infringement claim
>> including providing a copy
>> of the Brink's U.S. Patent No. 5,805,064 (the "Brink's '064 Patent").
>> Rojas' responded quickly
>> again, a mere half hour later, in a short email defiantly dismissing
>> Brink's claims. Exhibit E
>> (October 12, 2006 Rojas email). In spite of Brink's notices, Rojas
>> knowingly continued his
>> tortious activities of offering his services (such as reprogramming in
>> violation of Brink's patent,
>> trade secret and copyright anti-circumvention rights) and Brink's
>> products (including converted
>> products such as Brink's proprietary programmers which are tightly
>> guarded and never publicly
>> released by Brink's) through his website.
>> Rojas's responses to Brink's letters show that he has long conducted
>> significant business
>> activities knowingly making use of Brink's physical, contractual and
>> intellectual property.
>> Argument
>> I. THIS COURT HAS SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OVER ROJAS BECAUSE ROJAS
>> PURPOSELY DIRECTED INTENTIONAL TORTIOUS CONDUCT TOWARD
>> BRINK'S, KNOWING THAT BRINK'S WAS LOCATED IN TEXAS AND SUFFERED
>> THE EFFECTS OF THIS CONDUCT IN TEXAS.
>> Specific personal jurisdiction may be based on intentional tortious
>> conduct that is
>> purposefully directed toward the forum, knowing that the injury would be
>> felt in that forum.
>> Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In Calder, the plaintiff alleged
>> she had been libeled in an
>> 4593685 - 3 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 4 of 11
>> article published in a national magazine with a large circulation in the
>> forum state. Id. at 784.
>> The plaintiff filed suit against two nonresidents who wrote and edited
>> the article. Id. at 784-
>> 786. In finding personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court noted that
>> defendants' "intentional,
>> and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed" at the forum state
>> and defendants "knew
>> that the brunt of that injury would be felt by [plaintiff] in the State
>> in which she lives and
>> works." Id. at 789-90. "Under the circumstances, [defendants] must
>> 'reasonably anticipate
>> being haled into court there." Id. at 790 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen
>> Corp. v. Woodson, 444
>> U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). Under Calder, jurisdiction is proper here.
>> A. Rojas' Significant Regular Offering of His Circumvention and
>> Lock-Breaking
>> Services And Brink's Converted or Contractually Protected Products
>> Constitute Intentionally Tortious Actions Purposely Directed at Brink's.
>> The Complaint alleges that Defendant Rojas has: (1) converted Brink's
>> equipment and
>> programmers, (2) misappropnated Brink's trade secrets by using or
>> disclosing infonnation in
>> Brink's manuals, (3) tortiously interfered with Brink's contracts (the
>> PSAs signed by customers
>> including Texas residents), (4) induced and/or contributed to the
>> infringement of the Brink's
>> '064 Patent by offering to sell Brink's keypads, and (5) offered to
>> circumvent a copyright
>> protection system (Brink's lockout codes) and trafficked in
>> circumvention technology
>> (instructions and Brink's programmers). See generally Plaintiff's
>> Complaint. All of this tortious
>> conduct seriously harms Brink's, in Texas.
>> Rojas was aware of Brink's even before Brink's sent its letters. Rojas's
>> email response to
>> Brink's demand letters expressed familiarity with Brink's website, noted
>> that he had been
>> purchasing and using Brink's programmers for at least six years and that
>> he regularly dealt in
>> Brink's equipment (2 boxes each with a "great deal" of Brink's equipment
>> each week), and,
>> among other things, claimed that he didn't believe Brink's PSA
>> agreements were void or
>> unenforceable?a determination that could only be made by one very
>> knowledgeable concerning
>> 4593685 - 4 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 5 of 11
>> Brink's and its many customer and former customer relationships. See Ex.
>> C. It is clear from
>> this that Rojas had been knowingly directing his business activities to
>> Brink's for some time.
>> Moreover, at least as of his receipt of the September 6, 2006 letter,
>> Rojas had specific
>> undeniable notice of Brink's claims and the harm to Brink's from Rojas'
>> activities. See Ex. B.
>> Thus he was aware by September 6, 2006 not only of Brink's but also its
>> physical and
>> intellectual property claims and how his actions damaged them.'
>> When Brink's further explained its claims and provided a copy of the
>> Brink's '064 Patent,
>> he immediately expressed defiance: "1 have no further interest in
>> hearing what you, or your
>> client have to say in regards to the equipment, programmers, or
>> programming of abandoned
>> Brinks systems. I will continue to buy, sell, or trade Brinks parts,
>> programmers & accessories, as
>> it becomes available on the internet, or mailed to me." Ex. E (emphasis
>> added). In other words,
>> he had long been buying, selling and trading Brink's parts, programmers
>> and accessories?all
>> activities that Brink's believes violate its physical, contractual and
>> intellectual property rights?
>> and he would continue doing so.
>> In light of Rojas' knowledge of Brink's and its claimed rights, and his
>> substantial and
>> continuing activities based on allegedly illegal use of Brink's
>> equipment and intellectual property,
>> his actions can only be fairly interpreted as targeted to harm Brink's.
>> See, e.g., GPG Prods. Corp.
>> v. Pegasus Luggage, Inc., 776 F.2d 1007 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding
>> defendant's patent
>> infringement willful when the defendant was informed of his
>> infringement, was given a copy of
>> the patent, took no affirmative steps to ascertain whether he infringed,
>> and deliberately
>> continued infringing).
>> 'Even after getting this notice, at this pre-suit stage, Rojas went on
>> the offensive. Knowing that Brink's
>> installation and programming manuals contained trade secret information,
>> he threatened: "We will then
>> list the installation & programming manuals we have available as well."
>> Ex. C, ¶ 1.
>> 4593685 - 5 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 6 of 11
>> B. Rojas Knew That Brink's Would Suffer The Brunt of Harm at Its Principal
>> Place of Business In Texas.
>> Because damage from intellectual property rights (such as Brink's
>> patent) occurs at the
>> location of the owner, Rojas must have known that Brink's would suffer
>> injuries at its principal
>> place of business in Texas. See Store Decor Div. of JAS Int'l, Inc. v.
>> Stylex Worldwide Indus.,
>> Ltd., 767 F. Supp. 181, 183 (N.D. III. 1991) ("an infringement of a
>> plaintiff's intellectual
>> property right, which right is by definition intangible, must, by
>> definition occur 'where the owner
>> suffers the damage', i.e. where the owner is located"). Similarly, in
>> its October 12, 2006 letter,
>> Brink's requested return of its physical proprietary programmers. Ex. D,
>> ¶ 4. By not returning
>> these programmers to Brink's headquarters in Texas, Rojas knew he was
>> damaging Brink's at its
>> principal place of business.
>> Rojas knew that Brink's and its intellectual property were located in
>> Texas. He
>> expressed familiarity with Brink's business, including its website and
>> PSAs, even before Brink's
>> sent notice of his tortious conduct. See Ex. C. Brink's website lists as
>> contact information the
>> address of its corporate headquarters in Irving, Texas. Exhibit F.
>> Section 11 of the PSA also
>> provides Brink's address in Irving, Texas. Ex. A. Furthermore, Brink's
>> enjoys a high profile in
>> the industry and advertises extensively. Rojas must know that Brink's
>> principal place of
>> business is in Texas, especially in light of his expressed familiarity
>> with "dealers in the South,
>> like in Texas." Ex. C, ¶ 8.
>> By wrongfully selling Brink's equipment to Texas dealers and customers,
>> by using
>> converted Brink's programmers and the trade secrets they contain, and/or
>> by encouraging Brink's
>> customers to violate their PSA agreements with Brink's, Rojas would
>> necessarily damage Brink's
>> business in Texas. Rojas must have know that such actions would cause
>> harm in Texas.2
>> 2 Also, Rojas apparently does significant business in Texas. See Ex. C,
>> ¶ 8 (expressing familiarity with
>> practices of "many dealers in the South, like in Texas, Georgia, South
>> Carolina, Tennessee & Alabama").
>> 4593685 - 6 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 7 of 11
>> C. Plaintiff Has Met Its Burden of Establishing a Prima Facie Case of
>> Specific
>> Personal Jurisdiction.
>> Under the Supreme Court's Calder "effects" test, specific personal
>> jurisdiction over Rojas
>> is proper in this case, because Rojas has purposefully directed
>> intentionally tortious conduct
>> toward Brink's in this forum, knowing that Brink's injury would be felt
>> in this forum. Brink's
>> claims that its intellectual property and other rights are violated by
>> Rojas' Internet offerings
>> available to Texas residents, and Brink's suffers harm in Texas from
>> Rojas' nationwide tortious
>> actions. But for Rojas' conduct directed toward Brink's, the injury to
>> Brink's in Texas would not
>> have occurred.
>> Brink's should not be required to go to Florida to seek relief from
>> Rojas when Rojas
>> knowingly caused injury in Texas. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 790. And under
>> the facts of this
>> case, Rojas should have anticipated being haled into court here. See Id.
>> In numerous cases, the
>> Calder effects test has been applied to find jurisdiction in a forum
>> when the defendant
>> committed a business tort, including trademark dilution, copyright
>> infringement, patent
>> infringement, and trade secret misappropriation, and knew that the
>> plaintiff was located in that
>> forum. See, e.g., Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th
>> Cir. 1998); Illustro Sys.
>> Int'l, LLC, 2007 WL 1321825 (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2007) (applying Caider to
>> find jurisdiction in
>> Texas when defendant allegedly committed copyright infringement and knew
>> that plaintiff was a
>> Texas entity); Amini Innovation Corp. v. JS Imports Inc., 497 F. Supp.
>> 2d 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2007)
>> (finding jurisdiction under Calder when defendant allegedly willfully
>> infringed plaintiff's
>> copyrights and design patents and knew that plaintiff was located in the
>> forum); Precision Craft
>> Log Structures, Inc. v. Cabin Kit Co., 2006 WL 538819 (D. Idaho March 3,
>> 2006) (finding
>> jurisdiction when the defendant allegedly committed copyright
>> infringement and knew the
>> plaintiff was located in the forum); 3D0 Co. v. Poptop Software, Inc.,
>> 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
>> 21281 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 1998) (finding jurisdiction when defendant
>> allegedly committed trade
>> 4593685 - 7 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 8 of 11
>> secret misappropriation and should have known that their actions would
>> likely cause harm in
>> the forum).
>> Rojas' activities are similar to those of the defendant in Panavision.
>> In Panavision, the
>> court found jurisdiction proper under Colder when the defendant knew
>> about plaintiff
>> Panavision's trademarks, purposely registered domain names using those
>> trademarks, and
>> attempted to extort money from Panavision for use of the domain names.
>> Panavision, 141 F.3d
>> at 1319, 132 1-22. In finding jurisdiction, the court noted that
>> [Defendant] engaged in a scheme to register Panavision's trademarks as his
>> domain names for the purpose of extorting money from Panavision. His
>> conduct,
>> as he knew it likely would, had the effect of injuring Panavision in
>> California
>> where Panavision has its principal place of business and where the movie
> and
>> television industry is centered.
>> Id. at 1322.
>> Like Toeppen, Rojas has similarly engaged in activities that he knew
>> would damage an
>> intellectual property owner located elsewhere. Also like Toeppen, he
>> made threats to discourage
>> Brink's from enforcing its rights. Before this case was filed, in
>> response to Brink's first letter
>> notifying Rojas of its claims, Rojas threatened retaliation if Brink's
>> continued to pursue this
>> matter, stating, "We will then list the installation & programming
>> manuals we have available as
>> well." Ex. C. And again after Brink's filed its lawsuit, Rojas stated:
>> Since your client decided not to drop the case, I am going to publish this
>> information and make it available to any alarm dealer who wants it for
>> free. I will
>> also provide step by step instructions on how to change all the eprom
>> data to
>> include the dealer's own phone number, account number, report codes, zone
>> definitions, and how to alter the eprom to make the panel a local system.
>> Brink's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Docket #15, Exhibit A,
>> p. i0. Rojas has
>> made other threats directed to Brink's as well, including one to buy and
>> distribute counterfeit
>> Rojas does not appear to have given up on threats, even despite this
>> Court's injunction. Three days after
>> this Court's July 10, 2007 Temporary Restraining Order issued, he sent
>> an email, apparently renewing his
>> threat to post Brmk's trade secrets on the Internet: "All I can do is
>> just wait for them to get their
>> judgernent. That's when I will crack my knuckles, click send, and make
>> good on my promises..." Brink's
>> Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Docket #23, Exhibit C.
>> 4593685 - 8 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 FHed 10/02/2007 Page 9 of 11
>> versions of the Brink's proprietary programmer. See Exhibit G. In short,
>> Rojas has directed
>> more activities and threats against Brink's than Toeppen directed
>> against Panavision, so his
>> activities clearly support jurisdiction under the Calder test.
>> If the Court feels that Gadder is not sufficient basis for jurisdiction
>> under the known facts
>> set forth above, Brink's requests that it be allowed discovery to
>> determine the extent of Rojas'
>> business in Texas.4 Rojas has indicated he does business in Texas. See
>> Ex. C (stating his
>> familiarity with dealers in Texas). If discovery confirms that Rojas has
>> provided significant
>> products or services to Texas residents, then this fact in combination
>> with offering his products
>> and services through his interactive website available to Texas
>> residents would also support
>> specific personal jurisdiction. Zippo Mfg. Go. v. Zippo Dot Corn, Inc.,
>> 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.
>> Penn. 1997) (finding personal jurisdiction proper when defendant had an
>> interactive website and
>> conducted electronic commerce with residents of the forum).
>> II. THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER ROJAS COMPORTS WITH
>> TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
>> When minimum contacts are established, the defendant bears the burden to
>> make a
>> compelling case that assertion of jurisdiction is unfair and
>> unreasonable. Cent. Freight, 322 F.3d
>> at 384 (court to consider (1) the burden on the nonresident defendant
>> having to defend itself in
>> the forum; (2) the interests of the forum state in the case; (3) the
>> plaintiff's interest in obtaining
>> convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's
>> interest in the most efficient
>> resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interests of the states
>> in furthering fundamental
>> social policies.).
>> A plaintiff bears the burden of proof for showing personal jurisdiction
>> and when an evidentiary hearing is
>> not held, as in this case, the plaintiff is only required to present a
>> prima facie case. Cent. Freight Lines,
>> Inc. v. APA Transport Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 380 (5th Cir. 2003). Any
>> uncontroverted allegations in the
>> complaint are taken as true and any confficts between facts submitted in
>> affidavits are resolved in favor of
>> the plaintiff. Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1990).
>> Because Brink's has not had the
>> opportunity to take discovery due to Rojas' default, if the Court
>> believes jurisdiction is unclear, Brink's
>> requests the opportunity to take jurisdictional discovery.
>> 4593685 - 9 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 10 of II
>> There is no overwhelming burden in requiring Rojas to defend his actions
>> concerning
>> Brink's in this court. Brink's has strong interest in resolving the
>> dispute in Texas because Rojas'
>> tortious acts injured it here. See Double G Energy, Inc. v. AT Gas
>> Gathering, Inc., No.
>> 3:05CV0749-P, 2005 WL 1837953 at *6 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2005). Texas has
>> an interest in
>> this case because it involves a Texas-based corporation that has been
>> injured. Id. Texas also has
>> an interest because this case involves the application of Texas common
>> and statutory laws. In
>> the Internet era, when a single person may use the tools of the Internet
>> to carry out and support
>> wide-ranging business activities (such as, for example, solicitation,
>> purchase and receipt of
>> Brink's owned equipment; sale and rental of Brink's-owned equipment;
>> lock- and code-breaking
>> services performed for dealers and consumers; and distribution of
>> copyrighted manuals), there is
>> a strong interest in asserting jurisdiction over the remote perpetrator
>> of such actions.
>> The judicial system's interest in having this suit resolved efficiently
>> also weighs in favor
>> of Texas. A Texas court will more efficiently apply Texas law; multiple
>> Brink's witnesses are
>> located here and only one apparent witness (Rojas) is a nonresident; and
>> Brink's is likely to have
>> numerous documents and physical evidence at its principal place of
>> business here. While Rojas
>> might be somewhat inconvenienced by defending this suit in Texas from
>> Florida, this
>> inconvenience is slight in light of the ease of airline travel and
>> electronic filing. (Any depositions
>> of Rojas, of course, will be taken in his home area.) Further, "once
>> minimum contacts are
>> established, the interests of the forum and the plaintiff justify even
>> large burdens on the
>> defendant." Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir.
>> 1999). Rojas cannot
>> make a compelling case that jurisdiction in this case would not be fair
>> and reasonable.
>> Conclusion
>> For the reasons set forth above, Brink's requests that the Court find
>> that it has personal
>> jurisdiction over Rojas, and set a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
>> Entry of Default Judgment.
>> 4593685 - 10 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 Fi'ed 10/02/2007 Page 11 of 11
>> Respectfully submitted,
>> By: Is Mark SabJeipç
>> Mark Sableman
>> Dean L. Franklin
>> Timothy D. Krieger
>> THOMPSON COBURN LLP
>> One US Bank Plaza
>> St. Louis, MO 63101
>> (314) 552-6000
>> (314) 552-7000 (fax)
>> and
>> Christina I. Sookdeo
>> Texas Bar No. 24028001
>> Brink's Home Security, Inc.
>> 8880 Esters Boulevard
>> Irving, TX 75063
>> (972) 871-3503
>> (972) 871-3366 (fax)
>> Attorneys for Plaintiff
>> Brink's Home Security, Inc.
>> Certificate of Service
>> I hereby certify that this document will be served upon Defendant Jim
>> Rojas by PDF
>> email (jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx) on October 2, 2007.
>> Is! Mark Sableman
>> 4593685 - 11 -
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31 2 Fed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
>> lllBrnNKS I-SOME SECUR1T'
>> PROTECTIVE SERVICE
>> AGREEMENT
>> (Sesidentll Premises)
>> 00100101111111001
>> This A9raenieflt is made between Brinks l4ome Security. Inc. (lnI(s')
>> whose address is shown aboue. and
>> YCIP lunate) (111o012 PdnI)
>> Billing address ii difIsrnt toni installation addiess:
>> Se10ian i.s00vIcE1
>> sa) 008(5 loS pnside 9011 sAn in. sealco (toe 1rCc' 00091511 by VAn
>> P1010100050119115111101
>> n) V(lO 1101001001 WOn 010.1 lOin lIOns 18 0011111100 pAnsCini slpIisnles
>> TSUnaMI P0edI00 Sqs.prawr) aol 51918(5 is 911010051090010,00100
>> I pM hOle 1151.011 ra sew 081100 080* 0001 Piundlea
>> 1151110000 rAdlOlOl'01 pSJocSno 5loalla 50100 .1101 0illel1Ie5edo,
>> 11110111 01801 A snod II Iris AgloanlOll. Vs olIn Ploleclten E51isoenr
>> noose lb 5100111110 pn.olinn 5lI1içlnt0d polO tile MdlllOIhOl P19100100
>> Oqocenes.
>> 111 The $0108010 sajed to *50 ones 11118 nsldlbele 01909101*52901010000
>> 2900111.1.1110050101081151 pOll solOn eoeoo11)
>> IC pal 01lha SoMi.. aslors .11011 ollOpo lZ 0% 0012 55 .5IC
>> 1010100 9ol01koW ho p1015111110 Emeo 01 510 d's115 Vol.8 II, Ills
>> 10001110011 W0l'o 000 111101,011*11 ,ssnoo aolg01 00alb11n 0)
>> 11101111111030 0912000111 SISAl1 elMOdlOS 1001001 0.01100 loll 000.01. Iso
>> 9100001150 1100008011 nyOl.1 001000515,00100105 lolonnSllOfl 5001.00..
>> S5n1100 Z PESO:
>> gA) 700110,05 011 909 011111111 Inn OOInI00001I, he. 09500 lfl eon
>> 0n01000n won
>> 0.1101 ColOn P1,00001011510001.
>> 5) twIll0 1111 111100 7020 1511001 lOS A910000ll. y111 loll 910581011(5
>> ho 0020017
>> 10011117*010
>> $2900 1.1701)90.110000 Foe
>> 11.009111010111100,0151010110111101001111/lO* .19
>> ? nOnP11alllC
>> .7010l9105 1090701110000011 nOllby 10000 L_.._..
>> "'fltSl*1tS'lJ11 1100lal.10001010001110
>> Ill
>> Vol 01705 1001,yIUx1011flol 11011101/be IC $_.____
>> 1010.90010101530511009082111010.001050
>> ,lnre000A ,0 SIrlOIn 5)0) 001011. (,oqOl10d 10,000500.)
>> Alto 1111)52,111 000011'llI 501.11011110 pos 9111, -)_ ?
>> /0111 II 1,11,0 ,lll11l1l0I0 10491000004141110111)
>> 1:11109 O,1cc.rnl' loll?
>> lOIS 111111100 3010 IlIng 1110)1
>> 050011111108 1101y loll tO 010111011011.
>> III Ye., 091001111015010 toll,l 10000191 11.0 byolI000. n00nsp bOor. e.
>> EnoyR.oy. I
>> 0110 p1011.1 019117 011151 awl (TI 2% 11001011001111. p$0100ldtal0 poor
>> 1530111
>> _lyollnoy .,,lnln pIlOt _ll000 501011
>> )1) PInbAll 05110509.1 TrIO 0111000010.110001011101109 loan 5111015540
>> S.ldolll 274) toO )Oll 00 poly l00(l'41 115 ililolI 10110 nI Ills
>> 5911005518 10
>> Ill Vie oh pay 010(1011100105510010 1511$ o,ooe0ct playSSyS 011101 10505
>> is colononlon 10011 $01000, 0801808 lIne 110110101110 0011 ,wnlhOong 18
>> 1115.
>> 11.180011051911911001 UILESS YOU 111*010111,10 AN 01900110111. P55 TO
>> 1115)00.11150 TIOb r100rsctlve E0UPI'lSO4T. YOU 00115. SE SILLS)) A
>> P1)OPOR.llOPAli$ 50(505 OF TIE OMOIJHT 8501505w TO FEIMBIJPSE
>> 80075(17 P0)0 1955 PROPSATY TAX IT PAYS ON ALl, PROTEC11VE
>> OOUIPMEIOT 114575111.0)) FOIl YOU 0919 OTIEFIS IN YOUR 1115100
>> ,l,IFIIS17CIIOIllS) pro S0l,'? ViA 117$. TIE A11.LOCOIIOI4 IS MOOS (*10
>> STl)E.WIUC floss 01.5 To 011501o91'100 TAXI140 .9.alS01CTIOoSU)
>> 1)1150111015111 WILl. 1$ 011.1.50 ONCS (01>1 'lEAR 01183 SUNSR.ALLY
>> RAIOSES P9101113,1.00 TO 0)5.00 PEP) YEAR. The 0010 0 010 P101151100
>> Eq,opboSIle bIlls 0000091100111001010009101015. ye. 08001010,5019105100
>> pSoodIno eqolomolo old ar 51. yos iso .19910011 .oloslollo0 70. amPle
>> 0000158 noioSanoolflTDe saiuol 10010 0.10..11 11 papalysoIhIl '00110110111
>> 00.155151 110190180005110010011104 0Ip0.10100aMW001505O01al
>> 11dIVs01 05010
>> II p01110151.1101104117010 tolsitlIg 00311100011(11101.91111301001 010
>> 110319101010111011101 9101010 111111001 11.0101
>> Rloorodby ??
>> TaIap00011 I_._.).,
>> Ill. III All 0111 30,1
>> SR1NXS HOME SECURITY. bOO.
>> Sy
>> Authorized R0910100111011V0 809. No.
>> SATE ,..,,,.____. ?
>> A
>> Alp 150*11
>> lnb'OduOtOry Exlsn10011
>> By oigr119 011$ /55100mOIt paU 1191001000 bold byal 11)111 pi0o0)G 0i01
>> 61*6 500$ 8181100C*3y(*19 90000 00001)001 IOSUOIIO, 2101 APPUOASI.0 TAXES,
> I
>> $0011003' *90000100401 a 199)56 'FEAR TERJI SoeI.b, 5(a). Bo$*o
>> 0090111001011 OF TIE
>> PNOTECTIVE EQUlP°'ElOT SIC 50010*7. Uhl'TATION OP UAOluV(.
>> TEa zokll0011lIOO 0100701100 IllS a.oaolC lie
>> 08101010111101004011101000115000 WON 01001 __________ 00111.
>> 7(0, 011001110 III BloWn, 100191711110150110011 lIning '10011010100
>> 50,5108) No.110.0. __________ loo.ooosl'n neAt
>> EASYPAY AUThORIZATION
>> (I) 0.1509, E500POY. Vol I.1150yIndllO.lIZ0
>> S,IS000011IOI10*PIInS11 001011110131.1110?
>> O hole. 101519000011010000 e*0ooo* 1050000101 shea.. 00 Sodloil 2111)
>> 8110000010011011001(1.11111003011500109011100110*4 PopolarIn 'sAl çp Oh
>> 51011(010l01Wel 109010510111110101101111010515110101101101
>> O 05110011-00501009 *0s,rs TnolICw
>> lo., Oo.onIjIonIOlsto. Oe.AOq 11000.. 810010 (011010.00 .111011.
>> * 011105051001040101101 11111140
>> O OplIon 2.00101010110 CleAn Cold ESoon.
>> ._5104 ,_MoolnoOloA
>> 00ll Cold *110001
>> _______
>> EnploelIOlr Del,. Ml.1_,, .._._._ OO,,,.__.. YY,_,_,_.,,,.,
>> II 0,1010011
>> 1.o8(s.oil 111107710111 Inn 0.11210570015201101110 l100lflnS
>> olllGtAnl.n1h VIsA
>> 0101011000)1011,0121171015.701 0107 1110fl90 70' 11033111170021101
>> 0010011511,
>> 0110111111110 (1.09015 l,y 01111511114011110 l.501o1410107701 IoA.'J
>> 1141107 7111)
>> dllys 110101010(11 310110001000101800 cyloo0* 11010.001.119/1500 52014007
>> 11195011001101001110 0111/I, 011191.100155 leo EOoiyPO'y 11001
>> T0$I0l1111l,10
>> Pac.yl'oy loll FYi 111011111100111.111111111101112011 lOlflWCI
> 14.0915011010
>> Co,s000I01S,gnAlorIr_ ... ,_. .????????...-
>> l.l,01b110 0050.200 ar*152101
>> PrinI,0ONATIOI__,.
>> 50010113, SOU1AL TERSE-TSAR TERM 0110 801051001. TOOMSI
>> (5) VOl .10 00010)5 pay 101 010 S01l115 001(9 00 1n800 110111 III Ills.
>> 710100
>> oolI000olnp lOOn IllS 01515 51(0 011.1004 InS 1111000011, E4ap,rSoll
>> 090111000151
>> ThIs 008)0120 0110.110000 11000llr 11,11111 yb ,03111.in Ills 0215101901
>> lOW 0lld.
>> Il/an 111511110,) 01010111101. lEA 115155111510 115 lljIClT0*HIII
>> cR181105 1111
>> ea.X0dl05 Ol0151O 10)1001111 lOInS 11(1000)04 1301118(n 9010 11101110
>> 1111102 01,
>> 0401050101101111 011101 01 01,1451 00ye 031011 III.
> 1150101,0050*1011151110.
>> (0) III 10111011 leo to 01001100 1.0 19111101111911$ Ion poo nSA, boll
>> 90)105.
>> SIlos'. old nlliyy0*I 11111095*01111.040110001101015511070001000510801*01
>> 10005.10 100111 00100 II )000 101101.18 00 1010180 lIly 0.510500 0001
>> 0111011001 30
>> 500 01100 0100 I001IIIT 511)009. )010 0101.050 0gb 01101000010
> 7000910001019
>> 01510110405001003)11)00000
>> (n By ,nrloo 103011 $IhoI(0neqlol11boIo 500591030007
>> E5Illle000l0l0llbllo SOIl
>> 00110110111100 S$.9WIO gOIrOIlOlIg 500009010 1111.5 0.10111*0.
>> SsnlIon 0.0155105100 SM0010SPICY 11110502019005101400151.01
>> 1111 SOIl 011102111111019 0S5rb1lC0lI0a 901111105005050101010011011100
>> 51105901117
>> 0801111000112100110 MIII. 100111101000.10101001110110588(0 11 'FOIl
> 0101101
>> 1100040110050 01 10111 010100101 51001901109 bllOllIOlb,
>> 5111104011.91010120.1
>> 1,00il-445.0015
>> (11) &I.Vs 111000 C01510111121 III 10159101(5 lIly OIIOAQSOIV 1190(010
>> III 5011001 10011
>> THIS AGREEMENT CONSISTS OF SECTIONS 1 ThROUGH 12 APPEARING ON THE FRONT
>> ANDREVERSE SIDE.
>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PRIOR To SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT YOU RECEIVED, READ
>> AND UNDERSTOOD
>> A LEGIBLE. EXACT AND COMPI,ETELY.Ffl.LED-IN COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT
>> [INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS
>> LISTED IN SECTION 12(3)] AND THAT UPON SIGNING SUCH COPY WAS ALSO SIGNED
>> BY BRINK'S. YOU
>> FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND SECTION 7 WHICH LIMITS BRINK'S
>> LIABILITY AND THAT
>> YOU MAY INCREASE BRINK'S LJMITATIONOF LIABILITY BY PAYING AN ADDITIONAL
>> CHARGE TO BRINK'S.
>> S1g0051011 YOUR RIGHT To CANCEL
>> YOU MAY CANCEL THIS TRANSACTION AT ANY
>> CUSTOMER. . .... .. . .. _,,___. TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD BUS!-
>> NESS DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THIS TRANSAC'
>> CUSTO0)ER: -. ? ,,... TION. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED NOT1CE OF
>> CANCELLATION FORM FOR AN EXPLANATION OF
>> SATE.' , _._._..__-.._ ....__ THIS RIGHT.
>> (910100 10111 1111111. ely. 11010)
>>
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-3 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
>> T H 0 M P S 0 N C 0 B U R N Thompson Coburn LLP
>> Attorneys at Law
>> One US Bank Plaza
>> St. Louis, Missouri 63101
>> 314-552-6000
>> FAX 314-552-7000
>> www. thornpsoncobu.rm corn
>> Dean Franklin
>> 314 552-6038
>> dfranklfri@
>> thornpsoncoburn.cOm
>> September 6, 2006
>> Via EMAIL (jrojastechman.com), FACSIMILE #813/888-8794
>> and FEDERAL EXPRESS
>> Mr. Jim Rojas
>> 8002 Cornwall Lane
>> Tampa, FL 33615-4606
>> Re: Tech-man.com
>> Dear Mr. Rojas:
>> This firm represents Brink's Home Security, Inc. ("Brink's"). Brink's
>> supplies home security equipment
>> and services to homeowners across the nation.
>> It has come to the attention of Brink's that persons using the website
>> address www.tech-rnan.com, who
>> we believe to be you, have recently offered the following services and
>> products:
>> 1. Copies of manuals for sale, including:
>> BHS-l000 Quick Reference Guide
>> BHS-1200 Keypad User Manual
>> BHS-1202 & BHS-2000 LCD Keypad User Manual
>> BHS-2000 Quick Reference Guide
>> BHS-2000 User Manual
>> BHS-2000A Quick Reference Guide
>> BHS-2000B User Manual
>> BHS-3000A LED Keypad User Manual
>> BHS-3000A Quick Reference Guide
>> BHS-3000C User Manual
>> 2. Rental of programmers, including:
>> Brinks BHS 1000 & BHS2000 Plug In Programmer
>> Brinks BHS3000 Plug In Programmer
>> 3. Encouraging and facilitating the removal and modification of Brink's
>> panels.
>> 34210B4
>> rBIT
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-3 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
>> September 6, 2006
>> Page 2 of 3
>> Please be advised that Brink's services are usually provided to
>> customers under a standard 'Protective
>> Service Agreement" ("PSA"), a copy of which is enclosed herewith. The
>> PSA specifically provides in
>> section 5, concerning "OWNERSHIP AND USE OF PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT", as
>> follows:
>> (a) YOU AGREE THAT BRINK'S IS THE OWNER OF THE PROTECTIVE
>> EQUIPMENT AT ALL TIMES. You agree that this Agreement is not a lease.
>> You will
>> not attempt to remove or sell any of the Protective Equipment. You agree
>> that installation
>> of the Protective Equipment does not create a fixture toyo premises.
>> (c) * ** you will not allow alteration of the Protective Equipment
>> except in a manner
>> approved in writing by Brink's.
>> Accordingly, Brink's customers who are subject to a PSA may not legally
>> alter the Brink's system
>> unilaterally, and any sales of instructions, devices and materials which
>> are desied to be used in
>> connection with such alterations would constitute an attempt to induce
>> the consumer to violate the
>> applicable PSA.
>> It appears from your website that your services are being offered to
>> allow access such that copyrighted
>> software programs could be copied and facilitate the alteration and
>> reprogramming of Brink's systems.
>> Such alterations may permit the buyer to reactivate deactivated security
>> systems which belong to Brink's,
>> or take other actions which would violate the homeowner's contract with
>> Brink's, violate Brink's rights
>> under the U.S. Copyright Act including the Anti-Circumvention Provisions
>> of the Digital MiUennium
>> Copyright Act and/or modify Brink's systems in a manner that might
>> interfere with its operation or
>> endanger the residents by preventing adequate security operations.
>> Furthermore, any commercial downloading and copying of Brink's manuals
>> is likety a direct violation of
>> the Copyright Act.
>> Additionally, the chips that you offer to reprogram contain copyrighted
>> software of Brink's or its vendors.
>> Brink's believes that any reproduction of such software, such as copying
>> into Random Access Memory,
>> constitutes an infringement of its rights as copyright owner. See M41
>> Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer.
>> Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cu. 1993). The programming on the microchip is
>> protected by a lockout key, and
>> your instructions and methods for circumventing that lockout key
>> constitute violations of section 1201 of
>> the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, which prohibits the sale or
>> disfribution of anti-circumvent on
>> technology. These copyright infringement and anti-circumvention
>> violations are totally independent of
>> the PSA. Please be advised that the penalties under the Copyright Act
>> for both copyright infringement
>> and trafficking in anti-circumvention technology can be severe including
>> injunctions, statutory damages,
>> and enhanced damages in the event of willful conduct.
>> Because microchips and other security equipment subject to the standard
>> Brink's PSA constitute the
>> property of Brink's, any tampering with such materials, or the
>> encouragement thereof, may also constitute
>> trespass to chattels under state law.
>> Finally, Brink's may have claims for trade secret infringement and other
>> related claims based on the
>> offering for sale and sale of your services and products and the
>> inducement and instructions connected
>> with such sales.
>> 3421084
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-3 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
>> September 6, 2006
>> Page 3 of 3
>> For all of the reasons set forth above, Brink's demands that you:
>> (a) immediately withdraw your offers to copy Brink's manuals, rent
>> Brink's programmers or
>> modify Brink's panels;
>> (b) immediately withdraw any other offerings in any retail, auction or
>> other forum of any
>> Brink's security panels, programmers, instructions or inducements
>> relating to changing, altering,
>> circumventing or otherwise taking unauthorized actions with respect to
>> Brink's equipment;
>> (c) agree in writing that you will permanently cease all such
>> activities, and will not engage in
>> them in the future;
>> (d) identify all persons to whom you have rented or sold your services
>> or any materials
>> relating to changing, altering, circumventing or otherwise taking
>> unauthorized actions with
>> respect to Brink's equipment;
>> (e) disgorge to Brink's all revenue obtained from any past sales related
>> to these services or
>> any materials relating to changing, altering, circumventing or otherwise
>> taking unauthorized
>> actions with respect to Brink's equipment together with an agreed
>> penalty of equai size; and
>> (1) provide such further assurances of past, present and future legal
>> compliance as Brink's
>> may require based on its investigation which is currently ongoing.
>> Please be advised that Brink's regularly and vigorously enforces its
>> intellectual property and other
>> property rights. Brink's does not and will not tolerate infringing
>> activities and attempts to induce others
>> to breach its contracts, destroy its property or infringe its rights.
>> Please notify me on or before the close of business on September 13,
>> 2006 whether you will comply with
>> Brink's demands. We look forward to hearing from you or your counsel.
>> Very truly yours,
>> THOMPSON COBURN LLP
>> By
>> Dean L. Franklin
>> DLF/jar
>> Enclosure
>> 3421084
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-4 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
>> From: Jim Rojas [jrojastech-man.COmJ
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 6:03 PM
>> To: Reitenbach, JoAnn
>> Subject: Re: Brinks manuals, etc.
>> 1. All of the manuals we list on our website are available freely to all
>> on Brinks website. We could have easily added all the
>> installation & programming manuals, but we do not wish to make them
>> available to the general public. If you wish for us to
>> remove public access to these manuals, we will do so. However, we will
>> not stop listing them. We will then list the installation &
>> programming manuals we have available as well.
>> 2. Even though Brinks maintains they own their security systems at all
>> times, 99 percent of the time, Brinks chooses to abandon
>> it. Legally after 30 days after cancellation, the customer may dispose
>> or do what they want with the system, no matter what your
>> contract states. Most choose to sell or give them to us for other
>> equipment or services we provide.
>> 3. We purchased most of our Brinks programmers on eBay. In the past 6
>> years, we purchased 40 or more Brinks programmers.
>> If that is a problem, you might want to contact eBay. Other programmers
>> and equipment have come in the mail with nothing
>> more than a note stating "I think you can use this'. It may well be
>> ex-Brinks employees, we have no way to verify this. We also
>> don't keep records of donations that come in from the general public. We
>> generally accept 10-25 large packages per week. Out
>> of all those, maybe 2 boxes contain a great deal of Brinks equipment. A
>> few weeks ago we receive a single box of over 75
>> Brinks keypads and equipment of all kinds.
>> 4. We only rent or sell our programmers to license alarm companies.
>> There are no exceptions. Customers may send in their
>> abandoned boards for us to reprogram. We just shutdown the communicator
>> and change the user codes so the customer may
>> have a functional system again. If Brinks has a problem with this,
>> redesign the obsolete technology. Even the newer BHS-30000
>> are easy to reprogram. Also make sure Brinks removes the systems before
>> the 30 day deadline after the customer cancels their
>> contract, or moves into their new home. I am under no obligation to
>> follow your client's contract limitations. ADT tried to pull the
>> same thing.. guess what happened? Yep, you guessed it...ADT lost their
> case.
>> 5. We have received dozens of reports & emails from dealers all over the
>> USA that Brinks is installing these systems in brand
>> new homes & apartments. Since the customer never signed a contract for
>> monitoring at closing or even afterwards, they aren't
>> bound by anything your contract may or may not imply. Therefore the
>> homeowner is also free to abandon or do what they will
>> with the Brinks system.
>> 6. There is a person on eBay that does provide the unlocking, and
>> programming of the Brinks eprom chipsto the general
>> public.. .our policy stickly forbids this. We never make public any
>> company's lockout codes, receiver numbers, callback numbers,
>> or any other proprietary information programmed into their systems.
>> There are no exceptions to this policy as well.
>> 7. Alarm dealers all over the USA send us abandoned Brinks systems by
>> the box full. If Brinks wishes to purchase them all back,
>> we have no problem letting them doing so. We currently have several
>> hundred boards, keypads, hardwired and wireless
>> expanders of all kinds in stock at all times.
>> 8. Many dealers in the South, like in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina,
>> Tennessee & Alabama use Brinks systems as their
>> primary panel because of the abUndance of abandoned Brinks systems they
>> run into on takeovers. Brinks is well aware of what
>> is going on out there when it comes to their equipment. With many more
>> online alarm companies offering monitoring for as little
>> as $8.95 per month, it is only the beginning...
>> Thank you
>> Jim Rojas
>> EXHIBIT IC
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-5 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
>> T H 0 M P S 0 N C 0 B U R N Thompson Cobuzn LLP
>> Attorneys at Law
>> One US Bank Plaza
>> St. Louis, Missouri 63101
>> 314-552-6000
>> M.X 314-552-7000
>> www.thampsoncoburn.com
>> Mark Sableman
>> 314-552-6103
>> FAX 314-552-7103
>> EMAiL msab1enan@
>> thompsoncobum.com
>> October 12, 2006
>> Via EMAIL (rojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx), FACSIMILE #813/888-8794
>> and UPS
>> Mr. Jim Rojas
>> 8002 Cornwall Lane
>> Tampa, FL 33615-4606
>> Re: Various infringement claims; Our Ref: 7498-54476
>> Dear Mr. Roas:
>> I am responding on behalf of Brink's and my partner Dean Franklin to the
>> emails you sent to
>> Mr. Franklin on September 6, 2006, in response to his letter of that
>> date. While we appreciate
>> your timely response to Mr. Franklin's letter, and while we now better
>> understand your
>> position, significant issues remain.
>> First, your suggestion that Brink's has "abandoned" its security systems
>> is not correct. When a
>> residential homeowner goes to Brink's and. asks Brink's to install a
>> security system., Brink's
>> does so under contractual terms and conditions (which have been provided
>> to you) which
>> expressly provide that Brink's retains ownership of the security system
>> equipment. If and
>> when the Brink's customer chooses to discontinue Brink's monitoring
>> services, the customer is
>> given a choice of having the security system remain in the house, where
>> it may be seen by a
>> subsequent purchaser as adding value to the house, or it may be removed.
>> Most homeowners
>> in this situation choose to have the system equipment remain installed
>> because of the obvious
>> benefit in the event of a home sale or the customef s decision to resume
>> Brink's monitoring
>> services. In any event, the equipment remains the property of Brink's;
>> you cannot obtain good
>> title to this equipment even if you have paid for it. While you may not
>> have known these facts
>> before, the contract that Mr. Franklin provided to you makes that clear.
>> Now that all the facts
>> have been clearly provided to you, you no longer have an excuse of
>> reasonable basis for
>> believing that unused Brinks' security system equipment was "abandoned"
>> simply because it
>> was no longer being utilized as part of an active Brink's monitoring
>> security service.
>> In some cases, Brink's does install systems in brand. new homes or
>> apartments prior to any
>> Brink's monitoring service contract, and in that case, as you noted in
>> point 5 of your email, the
>> situation is somewhat different from the ordinary situation. However, if
>> you have any control
>> 3439738
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-5 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
>> Mr. lim Rojas
>> October 12, 2006
>> Page 2 of 3
>> panels which say "this control panel . -. is the property of Brink's
>> Home Security" or similar
>> language, then it is very clear that the panel was not used in new
>> construction. This is not to
>> say that any panel without this label is not owned by Brink's, as we
>> suspect the label is often
>> removed by those who attempt to wrongfully sell Brink's equipment.
>> Additionally, because the
>> systems that are installed in new construction are owned by the
>> homeowner, it is rare that they
>> are removed from these homes. We therefore believe a very low
>> percentage, if any, of the
>> Brink's panels in your possession came from new construction.
>> Second, cny and all of the Brink's progrrn'mers that you have in your
>> possession are Brink's
>> property. The programmers are manufactured and progrnmed for use solely
>> by Brink's to
>> program Brink's secuñty systems. The manufacturer sells them exclusively
>> to Brink's.
>> Brink's does not sell, abandon, release, or otherwise distribute any of
>> its progrpmmers. It is
>> possible that former Brink's technicians have at times not returned
>> progrrnmers in their
>> possession to Brink's at the conclusion of their employment, but if this
>> is so, any such
>> continued possession of the programmers or any sale or distribution of
>> the programmers by
>> those former employees was unauthorized by Brink's. Similarly, Brink's
>> programmers may
>> have at times been lost or misplaced, but as I am sure you know, it is a
>> basic legal principle
>> that in the case of lost property, the original owner has superior
>> rights to any later findei. In
>> short, you have no right to possess, claim ownership of, sell, or
>> distribute Brink's programmers,
>> regardless of whether you acquired the programmer on eBay, by donation,
>> or in any other
>> manner. Any such Brink's progrirrners that have come into your
>> possession are stolen or
>> misplaced property of Brink's. Brink's hereby notifies you explicitly
>> that you have no rights to
>> these programmers, and Brink's requests that you return any such
>> programmers currently in
>> your possession to Brink's, and cease all purchases, sales and
>> ditribution of such devices,
>> Third, it appears clear from your website that you promote, aid, and
>> abet the circumvention of
>> lock-out codes that protect the software resident on Brink's home
>> security systems. Because
>> the lock-out codes are circumvented in connection 'with reprogrrnm ing
>> activities which
>> involve copying or adapting the programs that Brink's has put on the
>> system, the
>> circumvention of these codes clearly aids in the infringement of
>> copyrighted material. This
>> constitutes a violation of one or more subsections of section 1201 of
>> the Digital Mifienium
>> Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201), including the prohibition on the
>> distribution of equipment
>> designed to aid such circumvention. Under the Copyright Act, this is an
>> action wrong in arid
>> of itself, without regard to whether you or others actually carry out
>> the circumvention. See 17
>> U.S.C. § 120 l(a)(2) (prohibiting trafficking and anti-circumvention
>> technology). It is important
>> to note that these violations are completely separate from and in
>> addition to any inducement of
>> a breach of Brink's customer contracts.
>> Fourth, in addition, the selling of components of the Brink's security
>> systems and the
>> reprogramming of the Brink's boards may constitute a violation of
>> Brink's patent rights, to the
>> extent that you resell or reprogram components for use in a security
>> system that infringes the
>> claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,805,064. Please refer to U.S. Patent No.
>> 5,805,064, a copy of
>> which is enclosed with this letter, to see the exact scope of Brink's
>> patent rights in this regard.
>> As you know, the United States patent law prohibits unauthorized persons
>> from making, using,
>> 3439738
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-5 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
>> Mr. Jim Rojas
>> October 12, 2006
>> Page 3 of 3
>> or selling patented equipment or practicing patented processes such as
>> the one described in the
>> Brink's patent. Your activity in reselling or reprogrpmming Brink's
>> equipment may induce
>> others to infringe Brink's patent rights. Under the law, one who
>> actively induces infringement
>> of a patent or offers to sell or sells a component of a patented system
>> may also be liable as an
>> infringer. See 35 U.S.C. § 271.
>> Fifth, with respect to the Brink's manuals that you have made available
>> for downloading from
>> your web site, it is a violation of the Copyright Act to distribute
>> Brink's manuals without
>> authorization. The Copyright Act provides Brink's with the exclusive
>> right to reproduce its
>> copyrighted works, prepare derivative works, or distribute copies of its
>> works to the public. See
>> 17 U.S.C. § 106. While Brink's in the past made user manuals available
>> on the mybrinks.com
>> website for use by authorized Brink's customers, it never gave explicit
>> or implicit permission
>> for you or others who were not Brink's system customers, but rather who
>> are misusing Brink's
>> equipment, to distribute the manuals. Moreover, the Brink's user manuals
>> are no longer
>> publicly available, as access to the portion of the mybrin.ks.com
>> website where these manuals
>> are posted is currently password protected. Accordingly, Brink's again
>> requests that you
>> immediately remove all Brink's manuals from your public web site and
>> otherwise cease
>> unauthorized distribution of them. Additionally, the Brink's
>> installation manuals were never,
>> and currently are not, made available to the public in any manner.
>> Dissemination of these
>> manuals in any manner constitutes copyright infringement and may as well
>> constitute trade
>> secret misappropriation.
>> For all of these reasons, and the reasons set forth in Mr. Franklin's
>> original letter, Brink's
>> believes it is clear that the products and services sold on your website
>> violate Brink's
>> intellectual property rights, and constitute tortious wrongs that have
>> damaged Brink's business.
>> We again request that you promptly agree to discontinue all such
>> activities. Please advise me
>> on or before October 26, 2006 whether you will do so, or whether it will
>> be necessary for
>> Brink's to take farther action to enforce its rights. I look forward to
>> hearing from you or your
>> counsel.
>> Very truly yours,
>> THOMPSON COBURN LLP
>> By
>> Mark Sableman
>> MS/be
>> Ericlosu.re
>> cc: Mr. Chris Cage
>> Mr. Dean Franklin
>> 343 9738
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-6 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of I
>> From: Jim Rojas [mailto:jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:44 PM
>> To: Sableman, Mark
>> Subject: Re: Brink's -- various infrigement daims
>> It appears that no matter how I respond to this letter, you will reply
>> with more legal double
>> talk. have no further interest in hearing what you, or your client have
>> to say in regards to the
>> equipment, programmers, or programming of abandoned Brinks systems.
>> will continue to buy, sell, or trade Brinks parts, programmers &
>> accessories, as it becomes
>> available on the internet, or mailed to me. You are welcome to try to
>> prevent this, but you and
>> I know what the chances are of that happening.
>> If you insist on pressing this issue, I will make both letters you have
>> sent to me public
>> information for all the security industry to view, including end users
>> that use my website. This
>> includes all alarm forums & newsgroups. Don't be surprised if it causes
>> your client to lose
>> some customers, or even a spotlight in Mr. Kirshbaum's legal column. The
>> internet is a
>> wonderful thing...
>> Have a pleasant weekend.
>> Jim Rojas
>> EXHIBIT
>> I ___
>> Contact Brink's Home Security Page 1 of 2
>> to RapKl Response
>> Ca I I now! 1?888-848?0906
>> About Us I Careers Contact Us INSTALL NOW!
>> Home j Systems and Pricing T Brink's Monitoring T Brink's Difference J
>> My Brink's Account T Internet Special! 1
>> Our Customers
>> Have Spoken
>> The rapid response of
>> the Brinks Home
>> Security system saved
>> my home I am at
>> ease with Brinks on
>> the job."
>> - T-cy, IN
>> : A Consumers
>> Digest Best
>> Buy
>> award for the
>> standard and
>> premium systems.
>> 3.D. Power
>> and
>> Associates
>> award-recognized
>> monitoring center.
>> Learn more about
>> these and other
>> recognitions.
>> hftn-//www. hrinkshcrniesecuritvcom/contaCtUS.htm 9/28/2007
>> Home> Contact Us
>> Contact Us
>> Our dedicated professionals are just a click or a phone call away. Please
>> call us at one of the toll-free numbers listed below, or If you prefer,
>> please
>> click on a question below and complete the information that follows. We
>> will contact you concerning your specific needs.
>> Home Security 1-800-379-9194
>> 1 would like to schedule a security system needs analysis
>> I want to meet with a Brink's Home Security Representative
>> I would like to schedule the installation of a security system in my home
>> I want additional information regarding Brink's Home Security systems
>> and products
>> I am moving and would like to schedule an alarm system installation in
>> my new home
>> I would like to find out more information about prices
>> Home Security System Already Installed 1-800-379-8816
>> I want to activate an alarm system currently In my home
>> Customer Center 1-800-445-0872
>> I have a billing inquiry
>> I would like to request service
>> I am moving and would like to schedule an alarm system installation in
>> my new home
>> I want to activate aü alarm system currently in my home
>> 'I want to talk to a Brink's Customer Care Representative
>> NC,)
>> 0
>> C? >
>> 9
>> N- 0
>> Cl)
>> 0
>> Access Your Account
>> I Choose Account
>> Log ito view your
>> More Great
>> 5avngs
>> Save On
>> Insurance!
>> EXHIBIT
>> Ii
>> F
>> Contact Brink's Home Security Page You could save up to
>> Brink's Business Security 1-800-890-8945 200/0 on
>> homeowners want to schedule an appointment with a Brink's Business
> Security
>> insurance. Representative Get Email
>>  From Brink's! I want to contact Brink's Customer Care Department
>> Brink's
>> Sign up to receive System Brink's specIal offers
>> and security tips. Dealer Program 1-800-380-1388 Already
>> Installed?
>> SIGN UP NOW I want to become a Brink's Authorized Dealer
>> Activate now and ---- I want information on becoming a Brink's
>> Authorized Dealer save!
>> Brink's Home Technologies 1-800-371-3893 Non-Brink's
>> System
>> I am a builder and would like to schedule an appointment with a Brink's
>> Already Representative Installed?
>> 'What types of services does Brink's Home Technologies offer builders?
>> Switch to Brink's
>> How do builders contact Brinks Home Technologies for security systems,
>> and save'
>> low voltage wiring and other home technology solutions?
>> Moving? Brink's Home Security Corporate Headquarters
>> As a Brink's
>> To contact Brink's Home Security's Corporate Headquarters regarding an
>> Customer you can
>> issue not addressed above, please write or call us at: enjoy our special
>> move offer.
>> 972-871-3500
>> 8880 Esters Blvd
>> Irving, TX 75063
>> Home I Systems and Pricing I Brink's Monitoring Brink's Difference I My
>> Brink's Account I Special Offer Legal Notice I Site Map I FAOs I News I
>> Security Resources
>> Brink's Home Security I Brink's Business Security I Brink's Home
>> Technologies I Become a Dealer
>> Privacy Policy: US I Canada ©2007 Copyright Brink's Home Security. All
>> rights reserved. Brink's, Inc. and Brink's Home Security, Inc. are
>> subsidiaries of The Brink's Company.
>> www.brinkshomesecuritv ,cornlcontactus ,htm 9/28/
>> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 31-8 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
>> Sablemai, Mark
>> From: Jim Rojas Uroias@tech-man .com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:22 PM
>> To: Sableman, Mark
>> Cc: Franklin, Dean; Reitenbach, JoAnn
>> Subject: Re: Brinks Programmer Part 2
>> I have been doing some further research. According to my Taiwan trade
>> contact, the China
>> based manufacturer of this S3121 programmer still has many of them left
>> for sale. I just
>> ordered a hundred of them at $22USD each.
>> I think your client opened a huge can of worms here. Maybe your client
>> should take this
>> opportunity to have Honeywell design an entirely new panel line. Their
>> latest BHS4000C is
>> very easy to reprogram. You don't even need a progranhxuer. We figured
>> out how to do it
>> across the datahus.
>> Sorry about that.
>> God Bless america
>> Jim Rojas
>> Jim Rojas wrote:
>>  > I thought this programmer was made exclusively for Brinks? I guess no
>>  > one told this to Intellisense (Honeywell) . It seems they have it
>>  > listed as the Eclipse model # S3121 on it. . .1 wonder if Judge Jane J
>>  > Boyle is aware of this undisclosed fact.. .oops. Please feel free to
>>  > enter this email as further evidence of your client's bogus claims
>>  > against me. I am attaching some pictures in case your legal aides need
>>  > a visual reference.
>>  >
>>  > Ebay Item # 180121496748
>>  >
>>  > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Viewltem&item=180121496748
>>  >
>>  > Better luck next time!
>>  >
>>  > Jim Rojas
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > ??
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>> EXHIBIT
>> 1 G
>
>