Open Letter to Brinks over Tech-Man

Many dealers out there will second your feelings Nick

KK

My opinions follow. (Protected Free Speech)

Hmmm... I wonder if we would all as dealers who subscribe to Jim's services have grounds for a tortious interrferrence lawsuit against Brinks. After all they deliberately and willfully with knowledge and forethought interferred with ALL of the services Jim provides. Based on the circumstances surrounding this deliberate and willful act I would infer malice as well, although that would be difficult to prove.

As a paid subscriber to Jim's download services I feel that Brinks has attacked me and my business personally. As I have never taken over a Brinks panel, handled a Brinks manual, or talked to a current Brinks customer that I am aware of I can only voice the opinion that this is a malicious and unprovoked attack against myself personally and my business. .

I know for a fact that Jim has specific permission to provide copies of many of the manuals on his site because we were all here putting pressure on many of those mfgs to continue to allow it a few years back. I would assume that he has permission for all of his manuals provided except Brinks.

Its my understanding that Brinks manuals have been removed (I have not checked as I have no interest in those archaic junk panels anyway) so they are now in my opinion deliberately trying to interfer by use of bullying tactics with the operations of other companies in which Brinks has no interest what so ever except possibly to disrupt the operations of competitors and benefit indirectly. Pretty lame tactics at best, and downright illegal at worst.

Bob La Londe I am not a sock puppet.

I suspect most people that hack old Brink's panels do it for the challenge and not to takeover a system. Why would anyone want to take over that crap?

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.

It may seem that way but what they did was notify his upstream provider that the site contained copyright protected material. The UP then shut it down. Jim can move to another provider but they can go after him again, playing Whack-a-Mole with his website. His best option would be to remove the disputed information from his site until the matter is resolved.

The malice is apparent enough, but it's not directed at you. Brinks' lawyers are going to do everything they can to destroy Jim because he had the audacity to speak the truth about their crap products.

It's business as usual for Brinks.

Probably so, but that makes no difference in the eyes of the law. It's analogous to telling the judge, "But your honor, I only robbed that one bank. I never bothered any of the others."

Probably, but that wouldn't stop Brinks from trying to shut him down.

October 11, 2007 The regular meeting for

occurred today. I was not in attendance. I was at a refinery. Unfortunately I have not yet figured a way to crack the hydrocarbons in old melted down Brinks panels to help solve the energy problem. However many dealers and central station operators at that meeting have been following this matter with Jim carefully. Most were not aware how far it has escalated recently, especially the temporary site shutdown. In this part of the country there are some real concerns about all this by folks well known in this industry. J.D. Benfer told me he would bring all this up again at today's meeting in Houston. I believe many central station operators like Benfer aren't convinced that they won't somehow get sucked into this dispute, one that is essentially over nothing. Everyone has a vested interest in saving their own butt. I have asked many central station operators, including Benfer, about how prevalent this Brinks panel take over thing is and have been told it is simply a non event. It literally doesn't happen. It would not likely be condoned by the operators if it were discovered. Brinks doesn't have any real allies in this industry. Brinks is tolerated by most in the industry simply because of the easy business it frequently generates from the abundance of dissatisfied Brinks customers nearly any competent dealer can acquire. This legal action may be doing something to reverse that trend. I can say there will be some back door contacts made to Brinks over this issue to invite sanity to return. This is going to be on the agenda of many alarm association meetings in the near future if there isn't a sudden change of tact by Brinks. I wonder how the court would react if there were direct submittals by nearly every contract central station operator out there to contradict Brinks' description of the danger to their business over this. I suspect someone should get really busy to figure out a strategy to overcome the real truth of the matter. People are getting really pissed off over this. They are pissed off enough to want to open their wallets and get something going. It might not be like a David and Goliath contest after that. As and example, if I were a salesperson for Brinks I might not want to try to explain to a customer why the previous salesperson from another company left a detailed sheet of questions to ask me about Brinks policies. I wouldn't like to find that Brinks had been blacklisted by nearly every alarm association on that list of questions for me to answer. I might wonder how this Brinks hand out ended up on nearly every counter at places like ADI, SGI, Tri-Ed, Richardson's etc. I guess because it had the alarm association meeting schedule on the other side of the paper? Most folks want to know how good your product or service is when making a purchase, not how many mad dog attorneys you have available to turn loose on them. More than a few alarm dealers are retired ex cops. It is amazing what strings they can pull to make someone look really bad, and how far some of the favors owed to them can really reach.

"SmallOne" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

With reference to this "detailed sheet of questions to ask about Brinks policies" Please E-mail me a copy or let me know (via E-mail only) if it really exists. This way, if it does or doesn't exist, lawyer "Strudleman" will never know one way or the other. A list such as this is certainly something that could be E-mailed to every NBFAA affiliated alarm installer in the USA along with the story of what they are doing to Jim.

Why if you think about it, some one could get that out to thousands of alarm companies across the nation in .... what? say a week or so?

Good Take Bob! I wonder if Ken Kirschenbaum would enjoy taking this one on? Mike S

Bob La L> My opinions follow. (Protected Free Speech)

He just sells paper as far as I know.

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message news:mWvPi.6367$ln.3330@trnddc07...

Sigh... My opinions below again. (Protected Free Speech.)

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. 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. 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. 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. There is nothing there that can not be discovered by other legitimate sources. 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" and his getting mad about them not allowing him to respond in the same manner as attorneys and others electronically. (An error committed by the clerks which resulted in the failure to appear) He could ask for a change of venue with cause if he felt the judge was acting in a prejudiced manner or he could ask for a change of venue without cause.

The following is second hand knowledge acquired from a number of conversation with judges, lawyers, business owners, and people who have represented themselves in court.

I was told once by a judge that you can guarantee prejudice against you if you ask for a change of venue. Any new judge will hold it against you that you basically accused another of their brethren of acting in a biased manner. I have also been told that the courts in general are very prejudiced against people who represent themselves. A person representing themself will often receive much LESS latitude than an attorney in the same circumstances. Quite often decisons have been made because not dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Want to know how prejudiced things can be. Here in Yuma there is a public library and a seperate law library. Most folks don't even know about the second and its not particularly easy to find out about and visit if you don't know exactly what to ask for.

Anway, MY opinion is Jim is going to get railroaded because Brinks attorney is filing stuff, and Jim is not responding properly and paying the bribe to a member of the good old boys cl... er I mean bar association. I've read his (Brink's attorney) stuff and I don't think he is particulary good, but he is dogged. He is also presenting tech stuff in simple language. By "dumbing it down" he makes it more understandable and it allows him to interject interpretation which is not accurate but presents a bias in the favor of his client. In order to defend his position Jim must present images and documentation in a technical (and therefore boring) manner. You guys remember the OJ trial? The jury and just about everybody else practically went to sleep during the presentation of DNA evidence. Its was a stroke of genius for the defense to simpley ignore most of that and then dismiss it in simple langauge rather than respond to it in a technical manner.

Bob La Londe Not a sock puppet

RHC: I once put together an email list of some 2500 Canadian alarm companies for use in potential advertising. Although I decided not to use it to advertise certain services I offer (since it would be interpreted as "spam mail"), I still have the list somewhere. Might be useful....

Not likely. He doesn't need to fight a losing battle.

I think that's a sideline. AFAIK, he's an active litigator. His website describes various cases he's worked on though those might be old.

Same here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

Brinks is just rolling over with glee.

According to Brinks, "the vast majority of us" interfere with their PSA's, buy their panels and programmers on line (at eBay), and walk around neighbourhoods wearing "Brinks" shirts.

Now that's a low blow. Brinks equipment is "state of the art". You can view a demo of it on their website. And where most central monitoring stations would immediately dispatch the police on a panic alarm, Brinks takes the time to call the residence first to "verify" the alarm. That's a very "responsible" way to handle a panic alarm where seconds count and your client's life could be in danger. Not to worry though... If the customer's killed, the PSA is rock solid and will ensure the survivability of the revenue stream.

It does. He offers to default other dealers boards too. Damn Jim. You're "B-a-aa-d"!

There isn't a single "hack" being offered on Jim's website. Unless of course you consider making the installation manuals for the panel available for download "a hack".

I sincerely hope you're still winning that battle, Nick.

I have all the installation manuals for the panels we use in hard copy as well as PDF's. There's no excuse for a dealer (or installer) not to carry the manuals he needs for the equipment he services.

Because he was dumb enough to leave the shop without his tools, you mean?

Every company is worried about losing customers. For Pete's sake, they could very well lose their "Consumer's Choice" award. JD Power may very well downgrade their standing. GASP!!!!

You obviously have never seen one of my partner's "hissy fits".

No. They need to upgrade their equipment. They need to hard code a few items. They need to weld their panels to the wall so they can't be removed. They need to shut down that website that offers the "call redirector" dongle. They need to shut down all the other alarm companies that offer better service at better pricing (and in so doing are tortuously interfering with their business). They need better trucks too. I've spoken to a couple of their techs here and they just hate working out of a pick-up. The "booties" they supply suck.

I am not an alarm guy, just a consumer and I would not purchase from Brinks nor would I give a recommendation to others to do so. I can tell you that as a typical resident of Oklahoma (on the Texas state line) that Texas law is tough, leverage in court goes to who and what you are. The only way to fight is to retain an attorney from that area. If you use an attorney from anywhere else, you will lose. If you can get a change of venue, that would be best. Since Brinks is headquartered in Dallas Texas and Mr. Rojas is not from there, the prejudice is already there.

Apparently you don't know enough.

Oh, has he litgated something recently? Cool.

I would normally comment on this absurd comparison however I do realize you have far more experience with the law than I do

Actually I was referring to the fact you know much more about the law from the criminal side than I do