Re: Jim Rojas' Tech-Help Beta

[Jim Rojas <jrojas+tech-man.com>]

Ain't that the truth...If Brinks wins, big freakin deal. Maybe I can get
them to pickup this mountain of Brinks panels in my back yard then. My
wife will certainly appreciate it.

Quoted From:
http://stayviolation.typepad.com/chucknewton/2007/07/asshole-free-se.html

Law firms are even slowly coming around to the fact that these people
have to go.  Asshole attorneys single handily destroying the practice of
law.

Jim Rojas




Jim Rojas



Frank Olson wrote:
> tourman wrote:
>
>>
>> RHC: Good for you Frank ! I fully intend to add the Tech Help on my
>> website (with Jim's permission). I'll publish the link when it is
>> available.
>>
>
> Thanks, Bob.  Jim put a lot of hard work and effort into making this
> resource what it has become.  While I agree that a company must protect
> it's intellectual property, I simply can't fathom what Brinks is going
> on about.
>
> Their customers sign what's called a PSA in which they acknowledge that
> Brinks retains ownership of the equipment.  Brinks installs equipment
> into new homes without a PSA and the buyer purchases the home with all
> the installed equipment present.  I don't care if Brinks puts their name
> and/or stickers on the equipment.  It's really no different than my
> buying a house with a Maytag dishwasher pre-installed.  Does this mean
> that "Maytag" owns my dishwasher??  If the sticker states "Property of
> Brinks" what's it doing in my house and where does it say in my contract
> for purchase that I don't own everything that's in the house once it's
> cleared escrow.  Does Brinks have the right to come into MY house and
> remove that equipment?  I don' think so.  Unless Brinks puts a lien on
> the property, there is no way they can defend their ownership if I buy
> it "free and clear".  Now, if I had signed a PSA with them on my
> previous house, there may be some recourse available to them (seeing as
> how it states that the contract "survives" the sale of the old premises).
>
> As to intellectual property being present in the software or web links
> Jim made available on his website, that's pure baloney.  First of all,
> Brinks doesn't "own" the patent on the Scantronic chip, or the Arrowhead
> programmer.  If they've purchased the products they may have some rights
> to it, but so far as I can see, there is no "property of Brinks" labels
> on any of the programmers Jim presented as "samples" to the court.
> Because the programmer can actually access Brinks equipment, does that
> automatically make all Arrowhead and Scantronic programmers Brinks
> property?  I don't think so.
>
> They also don't "own" the Patents on the Vista series panels that form
> the basis of their new 3000 and 4000 alarm controls.  That is OEM to
> them from Honeywell (who very well may have designed a programmable chip
> specifically for their use).  That doesn't prevent someone from
> comparing boards and determining that replacing one particular eeprom
> chip with the off-the-shelf generic Honeywell one will turn it into a
> standard Vista 20.  There is NO HACK involved.  All you really need is a
> chip puller from Rat Shack.  Would a customer that did this violate
> their PSA?  You bet they would.  Would finding and comparing information
> readily available on the Internet infringe on their rights?  That's for
> a judge to decide and from the looks of it, that question isn't even on
> the table.  Brinks is going to win "by default" against Jim, and not on
> the merits of the case.  Sableman will no doubt take full credit for
> being in a position to exploit the Law, but it will be a very hollow
> victory and certainly won't advance their intellectual property defense.
>
> By way of analogy, I happen to custom build computers.  I buy individual
> parts from various different manufacturers.  Asus motherboards, Western
> Digital hard drives, LG monitors, and DVD drives, Intel CPU's.  If I put
> all these parts together, I can't say I "own" the rights to the
> completed computer.  What differentiates the computer I build from the
> one you do?  Mine will most likely run LINUX.  You're probably "stuck"
> on WinDoze, but even if they were running the same software, how is my
> "right" to the finished product any different from yours?
>
> Their Patent on the alarm keypad may be enforceable, but to be honest
> it's really no different from all the other alarm system keypads that
> are out there (and probably don't even have the features a lot of them
> do).  It performs the exact same basic functions though.  I understand
> "Bell" owns the Patent for the telephone.  Does that mean *all*
> telephones?  Including our own system?  I don't think any of that
> technology was available to Mr. Bell at the time that he invented his
> particular telephone and I believe Panasonic would argue that it's
> "their" technology.