PR: Brinks Home Security files Civil Suit against Jim Rojas & www.tech-man.com

Sorry to hear this, Jim. I hope you beat them.

The systems which they claim are being converted (fancy word for "stolen") by you are not in your possession and have never been in your possession. In fact, they have all been abandoned (Brinks' SOP) when the homeowners stopped paying for monitoring. They *never* go out to collect their used systems after they've been in place for a while because they know they can't sell them again. Every customer wants a new system.

While they might be able to prevail in the matter of the programmers themselves, that should not give rise to any significant award. First, they have no idea how many programmers you've ever touched. Second, the programmers' intrinsic value is small. Third, Brinks might be shown to have abandoned them as well unless they have sued ex-employees who failed to turn them in. If they made no real effort to get them back after allowing someone to use them for a time, they are abandoned property.

As to copyright claims regarding the software in these abandoned alarm panels, that is nonsense. You have not copied and distributed such "software."

Of course, IANAL but the points are things you'll certainly want to go over with your lawyer. Perhaps a counter- suit is in order. Their frivolous lawsuit is certainly intended to interfere with your business. What you need to do is show that it's tortious.

It might help if you got sworn statements from other dealers who have seen many abandoned Brinks systems. Some of us have sold replacement systems to *lots* of ex-Brinks clients and are aware that Brinks does not make any effort to retrieve the systems.

If I can be of help let me know. I have numerous ex-Brinks customers as DIY clients. I could send out an email asking for comments about their service, why they cancelled and whether Brinks tried to retrieve the leased systems. We both know what the answers would be.

Seems to me if this equiptment was leased they would have a sticker on it some where saying it is leased and were to return it like all other companys who lease equiptment I deal with. I have seen over the years companys try to claim property that is theres and unless they vigorously enforce the lease agreement including properly makring it most district courts up here say too bad when a buisness goes belly up and equiptment is removed.

Hope you kick there ass in court.

If you don't mind me asking just how vigorously are you going to defend this case? Are you going to let them get a default judgment and then see what luck they have collecting? In Texas State Court you might be able to enter a plea of privilege to get the case moved. I am not an attorney so I don't know if Federal Law has a similar feature. I guess things are a little dull at Brinks HQ. I guess the armored trucks are getting a little low on cash. Does your little box take cash out of the back of those things? How else did the $75K number appear (other than to meet the requirements for getting the case filed)? I say the best defense is a good offense. The first is to get it tossed out on technical merits claiming the $75K is boggus. Although one is usually responsible for their own witness expenses, I am certain there are enough dissatisfied Brinks customers with horror stories to tell that deposing a whole slue of them and getting that into the public record might be more expense and negative press than Brinks could stomach. I fought bigger corporate boneheads than this. Although most attorneys really hate to lose a case, I think that corporate apathy at the corporate employee level is probably going to serve you better than anything else. With a last name like Rojas I figure you might know a little Spanish. Here is a little Spanglish Tex Mex message, with some German for good measure, you can deliver to Brinks on my behalf. FUMAR DE WEINER!

"Jim Rojas" wrote in message news:4613092b$0$17158$ snipped-for-privacy@roadrunner.com...

I hate Brinks. They're not all that prevalent out here, but the try to steal business from me occasionally. They have an "in" with realtors and apparently they give these guys a stack of decals that say: Call Brinks for Service, which the realtors stick on my alarm panels and on keypads in homes that are being sold, but they're too stupid to remove my decals or lawn signs. So if the new owners call Brinks..guess what...Brinks tries to sell them a new alarm system (you know one of dem proprietary jobs that come with a PSA lease agreement!)

No doubt the referring realtor gets a few bucks in their pocket. Most new homeowners don't fall for the scam and end up calling us anyway...but it pisses me off.

| >

| > Thank you all for your continued support. | >

| > Jim Rojas | |

I've got Brinks dead to rights in the suit we are filing and some of our info may be of interest to you.

I should think you would have removed all Brinks stuff after receiving the first letter

Every Brinks system has a disclaimer ON THE BOX which states the customer does not own the system, Brinks does

Thank you Perry Mason, however in the real world it's quite a bit different

Any answer would be worthless to this case

Every panel enclosure does, I've seen just about every Brinks system made and with the exception of the really ancient stuff anything made in the last

Jim, having recently experienced a similiar song and dance with ADT, I can appreciate how you feel at this moment. I wish you all the luck in the world in this suit and will be following this with much interest.

A couple of things to keep in mind regardless of the correctness (or not) of their lawsuit. These big companies (just like governments) can be real bastards in wearing you down. They have all the money in the world while companies like ours have limited resources. Corporate lawyers are experts at dragging things out hoping to wear you down financially, allowing them to win by default. At some point you may be forced to think about the consequences of continuing a struggle with limited value to you even if you win. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you throw in the towel if you and your lawyer feel you are correct; however, at some point, there may also be merit in sitting down and discussing the situation and coming up with a mutually agreeable "compromise". Your lawyer should tell you realistically your chances of winning in your situation. In my case, I was able to do that by giving up concessions to them which were of no consequence to me whatsoever (never to mention ADT by name on my website...big deal...didn't say anything about not using the term "borg" or "big blue" though....)

Whatever happens, we will all be watching this with great interest. Keep your chin up! David really can beat Goliath, but sometimes not always in the most obvious way. Just make sure that if you win the battle, you don't lose the war in the process.

RHC

I removed access to their manuals after the second letter. You can't just cave in to all their silly demands.

As far as the copyright infringment, they really have no case. I don't fiddle with their firmware chip at all, which I agree is copyrighted. I just plug in the Arrowhead DCU670 programmer, or any serial eprom programmer onto the board, and presto! You are in programming. It took me awhile to figure out all the programming locations, but I violated no law doing so. In the case of totally locked out panels, I can't help it if Brinks is stupid enough the use the customer's a*****t number as a lockout code. If all else fails, I use a $10 eprom eraser to wipe the eprom chip clean. Again, I violated no copyright laws doing so.

They can huff and puff all they like.

Jim Rojas

Mark Leuck wrote:

You're going to wipe the floor with them. BTW, as to the tortious interference claim, that's also bogus. Nowhere do they even allege that you have enticed any current customer to breach a contract with them.

Erasing or over-writing firmware does not constitute copyright infringement any more than burning one of their manuals. Since you're not copying and distributing the firmware there's no infringement. If I understand things correctly, you receive a panel with the firmware intact, erase or modify the lockout code and send it back to it's (presumptive) owner. That isn't a copyright infringement either since you're not holding the thing for sale.

The allegation that by reselling a panel you are infringing a copyright on the "firmware" therein is also bogus since it is integral to the hardware. That would be like Ford saying that by reselling it's cars you've stolen the copyrighted firmware in the engine computer.

The biggest problem for you is going to be hiring a Texas lawyer and/or going there occasionally. No one in his right mind would want to go there (let alone live there).

The firmware is the large chip. The eprom chip is the small 8 pin chip which contains all the programming information.

Napco, Ademco, DSC, as well as many others generally use the same type of configuration. As long as I don't screw around with the firmware chip, there is no copyright infringment. The eprom on the other hand, has no such copyright protection under the law.

Jim Rojas

Robert L Bass wrote:

interference claim, that's also bogus. Nowhere do they even

any more than burning one of their manuals. Since

I understand things correctly, you receive a panel

it's (presumptive) owner. That isn't a copyright

"firmware" therein is also bogus since it is integral

you've stolen the copyrighted firmware in the engine

there occasionally. No one in his right mind would

For the record, I have never unlocked any Brinks panel for any end user. There is no point. If the consumer wants to make the slighest change to the system, they would have to send the board back, which makes no economic sense. I always suggest to the consumer to replace the system with something that is both keypad & remote programmable.

Since I don't charge anything for my advice, most consumers after a reasonable amount of time, send me their unwanted Brinks junk as a thank you.

Jim Rojas

Robert L Bass wrote:

interference claim, that's also bogus. Nowhere do they even

any more than burning one of their manuals. Since

I understand things correctly, you receive a panel

it's (presumptive) owner. That isn't a copyright

"firmware" therein is also bogus since it is integral

you've stolen the copyrighted firmware in the engine

there occasionally. No one in his right mind would

contains all the programming information.

configuration. As long as I don't screw around with the

has no such copyright protection under the law.

Erasing or over-writing the parameters in the EEPROM chip is not copyright infringement. You can not copyright expressions like "30 seconds." (it doesn't even include the word, "thirty")

It's a nuisance lawsuit designed to intimidate. They know they have no case. However, this is Texas so be careful if when you show up you hear someone whisper, "Git a rope!" :^)

is no point. If the consumer wants to make the

makes no economic sense. I always suggest to the

amount of time, send me their unwanted Brinks junk

Nice. But who the heck is buying the used ones? On second thought, don't say. This whole thing stinks like ABC Alarm's threats against me back in the day. We replaced one of their unbelievably bad installations at a store in Kensington, CT (I always have trouble remembering the name of that town). The system was completely inoperable. The panel was "installed" on a pegboard directly inside a huge display window. The wiring looked like it was performed by an invertebrate (being nice now, I didn't say "primate"). The customer asked me to replace it because the alarm company had not responded to multiple calls for service (transformer fell out; battery died).

Soon after we finished our installation I got a phone call from the owner of ABC. I think his name was Perotti or something like that. He was livid. He threatened to sue for tortious interference. In between a slew of curses he stated that the system was leased and under a five-year agreement. I had already checked and the agreement had long since expired.

RHC: Jim, having recently experienced a similiar song and dance with ADT, I

Whomever: Just tell ADT how old you are and they will drop the case. They know

RHC: Cripes, 62 isn't old ! I'll still be going at it when you're suckin' on Viagra to keep it up !!! And who the hell is this anyway...God damn aliases.....

A couple of things to keep in mind regardless of the correctness (or not) of their lawsuit. These big companies (just like governments) can

RHC: Who's talking about unlocking boards....the subject is possible copyright infringement of a variety of potential types !!! As Jim says, he doesn't mess with the firmware in any way, and I know this to be true. Besides, Brinks is just stirring up shit because they can't have their cake and eat it too. They abandon crap equipment and then piss and moan when someone tries to resurrect it from the garbage. If it's so bloody valuable, then go retrieve it when the client leaves the home. In my case however, ADT did have valid points because I posted information from a friend which was incorrect as far as how I put it up on my website (didn't mean it wasn't true; just that I couldn't substantiate it...). In fairness, they were reasonable to deal with and we resolved it to our mutual benefit.However, in Jim's case, doesn't sound like they have much of a case (IMO). It all sounds like a scare campaign hoping he'll cave in. In this case, "Goliath" sounds more like any other large company with too many lawyers on staff...

It just means the burden

RHC: Naw !! But I love 'em...some of the very best people in the world, along with the many "Bubba's' and "Billie Bobs" I met in Alabama and Florida this winter....rough around the edges maybe, but fine, honest, God fearing people.And I don't worry about any of them packing guns either. The hotshot lawyers from Brinks and ADT could learn some lessons on humility from some of these good folks....

And...yeah...I might be lost without you if I knew who the hell you were....is this Tom by chance?...(crusty young fart !!!)

Only if you're in an S & M bar.