Re: New Brinks v Jim Rojas Update

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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