Re: Open Letter to Brinks over Tech-Man

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob La Londe" <alarm_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192197428.746801.83370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:mWvPi.6367$ln.3330@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ... I wonder if we would all as dealers who subscribe to Jim's
>>> services
>>> have grounds for a tortious interrferrence lawsuit against
>>> Brinks...
>>
>> Unfortunately, no.  There's no tortious interference involved
>> since
>> they're not attempting to take you away from a contract with Jim.
>> They're
>> enforcing their intellectual property rights and their patents.  I
>> happen
>> to believe that what Jim is doing is not a violation of their
>> patent, but
>> that's a matter for the court to decide.
>
> Sigh... My opinions below again.  (Protected Free Speech.)

Same here.

> They are attempting to deny me the right to a service I have paid
> for.  This is interferring with an enforceable agreement between
> Jim and myself.

Not really.  According to the law, they are simply enforcing their
own IP rights.  We agree that their case is of questionable merit but
the effect on you of their enforcement action against Rojas is
between him and you -- not their problem.  Here's an analogy.
Suppose Jiminex steals Leuck's bicycle and then contracts with you to
provide delivery service of your monthly billing.  Leuck can't get to
work on time by walking through the Texas desert so he sues Jiminex
to get his bike back.  In so doing Leuck stops you from sending out
your bills on time (no bike = no delivery), causing you financial
loss and preventing Jiminex from fulfilling his contractual
obligations to you.

You have the right to sue Jiminex for fraud (most of his customers
probalby do anyway so you'll have to stand in line).  But since
Jiminex stole Leuck's bike in the first place you have no right to
demand that Leuck allow him to use it.  He's a thief and a miserable
coward.  Sue Jiminex.  Leuck is just a hapless, primate victim.  Send
him a banana.

The parallel here (if you believe Brinks) is that Rojas *allegedly*
stole Brinks' intellectual property and placed it on his website for
all the world to see and use.  Brinks shut down Rojas' site to
protect their property.  If that affects Rojas' ability to fulfill
his obligations to you, it's his problem -- not Brinks'.

I'm not saying that Rojas actually stole anything, mind you.  He's
not Jiminex.  But if he actually does have copyright protected
material on hbis server without the permission of the owner, they can
legally get him shut down and you have no standing to prevent that.
I wish it weren't so.  I'd love to see Rojas kick Brinks in the
olson.  They deserve it.  Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
They're winning this war and there's not much you or anyone else can
do to save Rojas.

> I paid a fee in exchange for access.  Overt acts in support of this
> agreement
> were performed by both parties and it is documentable.  Tortious
> interferrence does not necessarily have to result in direct
> personal
> gain by
> the third party.  They are deliberately and knowledgably attempting
> to
> deny
> me a service I have an enforceable agreement to use, have paid for,
> and they
> are causing me harm.

To claim tortious interference you need to prove that the defendant
acted improperly and without privilege.  If they have evidence that
Jim's website holds their IP, they are within their rights to force
him offline.  You'd also have to prove they are acting with intent to
harm your business.  That would be a stretch, to say the least.
You'd have to show that they induced Rojas not to fulfill a lawful
contract.  That means they offered him a better deal -- not that they
forced him to stop violating their IP rights.  Finally, you have to
show that they caused you financial loss (not just inconvenience).
To do that you'd have to demonstrate specific losses you suffered
from not being able to get the software which Jim distributes.  Since
he can easily send it to you by other means that would be a tough
sell.  Furthermore, if the Tech Help happens to contain any of
Brinks' (allegedly) stolen intellectual property, his contract with
you is unenforceable and you have no right to go after the lawful
owner (Brinks) for stopping him.

> If it is found by the court (correctly) that Tech-Help
> does not contain actual "trade secrets" they have also done so
> under
> false
> pretenses...

You're assuming that Tech Help is what they're after.  That could be
so but they have stated in their filings that Rijas' website contains
other IP of theirs.

> Since I took the time to download and read all of the
> pages in the latest Tech-Help Beta with regard to Brinks I think
> they are just
> being
> pissy little prigs.

That's proqably true, but being such is not an actionable tort.  If
it were I'd own a few small alarm companies by now.

>  The biggest obstacle is that the judge is
> being
> "educated" by Brink and not by Jim, and I would believe that the
> judge
> is
> likely to have a mild prejudice against Jim because of his initial
> "failure
> to appear"...

That's Jim's own fault.  Numerous people warned him to take proper
legal steps to protect himself.  He chose to ignore good advice.
That's his choice and though I wish it were otherwise, he's now just
beginning to pay the consequences.

> Anway, MY opinion is Jim is going to get railroaded because Brinks
> attorney
> is filing stuff, and Jim is not responding properly...

Agreed.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

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