Jim R's filed motions

My original reply to the court had these arguments in it concerning who made these panels, plus alot more detailed pictures. The Court knows this, and maybe when I take the bus to Dallas, she will then allow me to better explain this evidence. Sableman's mission is clear. Confuse the Court into thinking his Client never sells their equipment and that Brinks has rights to equipment even though a customer never signed a PSA to begin with.

My continuance motion was aimed to possibly prevent Sableman from making judgment calls without first consulting his clients legal counsel. I understand that it was probably just a waste of time on my part, but there is nothing saying that I can't try.

I have several other motions I will be filing shortly.

Jim Rojas

Frank Ols> I would have mentioned that ALL of the "Brinks" security panels are

I don't think it matters if someone else made the panel for them. If I hire someone to write a book for me about something I want them to write (work for hire) the copyright is mine - the author just gets paid a wage no royalties no copyrights or whatever is stipulated in my contract with the author.

Thats entirely different. The original author can sign his legal rights away to whomever hired him to do the ghostwriting.

Brinks: Can you make me a panel that does this and that? It doesn't make it your copyrighted work if you didn't design the circuitry.

I searched the patent office. Brinks has nothing on file other that a stupid block diagram which explains what a their keypad does. There are no PC board diagrams on file, or anything truly technical in that respect. All they did was patent an explanation on how their keypad works. Their patent clearly described how most keypads work. What makes their explanation any different from other keypads remains a mystery.

Honeywell clearly designed, and manufactured the panel. Honeywell holds the copyright to the panel design and its documentation. Brinks merely contracted Honeywell to build them a panel based on Honeywell's existing panel designs. Honeywell would have been stupid to give up these legal rights. This would then given Brinks legal rights to the rest of Honeywell's product lines.

If you painted the keypad bright pink, can Brinks claim copyrights on that as well? No. The only thing Brinks can claim as their intellectual property is the firmware, which is under license from Honeywell who made it for them.

Brinks should have purchased an overseas manufacturer and had an electrical engineer build them one from scratch. The engineer can then give up his legal rights to the panel and firmware, then Brinks would have a panel line that they can truly claim as their own. But that would cost many millions of dollars.

Since Brinks' future in this industry is still in question, it was easier to get a huge manufacturer like Honeywell to whip something up.

Lets say if Honeywell elects not to manufacture this OEM panel for Brinks after their contract is fulfilled, what then? Brinks can't just take the designs and try to get GE Interlogix or Napco to continue to make it for them. That's because Honeywell retains full design and manufacturing rights. That is why you see Copyright Intellisense or Honeywell on the equipment, programmers, and documentation.

Jim Rojas

Crash Gord> I don't think it matters if someone else made the panel for them. If I hire

You should have answered each and every one of the "points" in the original Statement of Claim, refuting everything they alleged you did

The "Court" knows nothing. I would have responded to Mr. Sableman's original letters completely differently. All you've done is make yourself look foolish. Belligerence has never been a good strategy.

Take all the parts and components with you. Don't forget to ask Sableman how someone could sell a *boxed* Brinks panel on eBay (let alone the "deluxe" keypads). Ask him what Brinks is doing about this.

Sableman's "mission" is to win the case for Brinks. He knows law, not security. They've called in their "expert" to explain it. Instead of coming across as the expert I know you to be though, your hostile responses make you look more like a Bass.

Sableman can only present what his client tells him. If his client says that they don't sell equipment (and their PSA seems to agree with that), then you have to present your arguments to the contrary. You also have to show clear examples (proof). Sableman's going to be in court with a truck load of evidence he's going to try and bury you with. Your emailed responses to him will only serve to show that they're dealing with a nincompoop. *YOUR MISSION* is to present the facts in as clear and concise a manner as you can. You'll have to start with a formal apology and try and demonstrate you're the Professional *we* all know you to be.

That's not your job, Jim. And Sableman will make all the *legal* "judgment calls" *for* his client (that are in *their* best interests and that will win him his case). Brinks is represented in Court by their Attorneys. No matter whom they decide to send (and it could even be a "clerk") as long as they are *acting* for Brinks, the matter will proceed.

No... I wouldn't consider it a "waste of time". They have to respond to every Motion you put forth. It's just going to mean more money in Sableman's pocket. It's also going to mean more costs against you if you lose.

Fill your boots and the best of luck! My thoughts and prayers are with you.