FW: Attempted theft warning.

[John Esak]

I'm not sure if it slid by notice... But this is not just a "client"... Or a
person, or a company. It is the "government". Tioga County, being a
government agency may be constrained to a more stringent set of laws
regarding what they can and can't do. Well, that's the wrong way to say it.
They *must* abide by the laws of copyright infringement and other codes many
individuals can (or at least do) skate past. 

Tim is worried that the way he determined how to arrive at their "data" will
be seen by whoever is going to be engaged next.  That is like giving away
his 25 years of experience, and his father's 50 and his grandfathers 70....
It's giving away very hard earned intellectual property. There is no dispute
over the data here. As you know the *data* can't even be displayed properly
without the filePro system that created it doing the job. If I were Tim, I
would seek an injunction immediately on the grounds that it will severely
harm his company if Tioga proceeds.

John



> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.co
> m] On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:47 AM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: FW: Attempted theft warning.
> 
> Confusious (Jose Lerebours) say:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM, John Esak <john at valar.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Attention filepro developers.
> > > Toga County, Pennsylvania, our customer since 1995, has 
> decided to switch
> > > from us and filepro to a competitor. That is their right 
> and we have offered
> > > to extract their data from our complex system at a 
> reasonable time and
> > > materials rate.
> > >
> > > They abandoned an in-house reassessment in 2008 (that we 
> provided support
> > > to) and used us for unjustified political cover. Now they 
> desire to sever
> > > the relationship.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately they have chosen to break our license and 
> copyright agreements
> > > and search for a third party filepro developer to assist 
> them in delivering
> > > our entire software design and proprietary data to our competitor.
> > >
> > > They are apparently hoping to avoid having to pay over $40,000 in
> > > contractual, overdue license and support payments.
> > >
> > > We will be taking serious action against the county and 
> anyone assisting in
> > > this clear theft of our intellectual property. With a 
> complete clone of our
> > > data design and system (even if excluding processing 
> tables), this new
> > > out-of-state competitor can build on what we have spent 
> over 25 years
> > > customizing. Obviously the damage to us would be substantial.
> > >
> > > Feel free to email or call me for further information or 
> to alert us of
> > > contact from Tioga.
> > >
> > 
> > The same old question, who owns the data?  I have always been of the
> > believe that the data belongs to the client and unless otherwise
> > specified under contract, the code belongs to me (or at least its
> > marketing rights).
> 
> The man is not disputing data ownership, and expressly indicates that
> they've offered to extract the data for migration.
> 
> I do concur with your assessment regarding ownership; data 
> always belongs
> to the customer, code belongs to the developer, unless otherwise
> negotiated.  Even then, "code" applies to a program or 
> package as a whole,
> not its modular parts--I have a library of routines I've 
> built up over the
> years that is shared or partially shared over many programs 
> written for
> myself and for multiple clients.  Even if the "code" is 
> negotiated to be
> owned by the client, those sections are non-exclusive--they own the
> program/product, but I can still use my own library of 
> routines, some of
> which may appear in said "code" (code as an entity).
> 
> > Isn't loosing and gaining customers part of our daily lives?  Is it
> > not fair game to have one take a database and migrate its data to a
> > new database where the business is now going to operate 
> going forward?
> 
> Again, the man is not disputing that, and has stated that 
> they offered to
> assist in that process.
> 
> What is -not- part of our daily lives (or shouldn't be), is 
> someone skating
> without paying valid charges, including licensing and support 
> fees.  And,
> in the right situations, use of "the code" without paying 
> those fees is a
> breach of copyright law.
> 
> > Is proprietary "data" in this case information pertaining 
> to the "how"
> > things are done behind the scenes?
> 
> I took the "data design" part to mean essentially the 
> relational schema
> (ie., the ddefine layouts), not the data that would reside within.
> 
> > By the way, the notice seem to read more like "if you help these
> > people I will go after you" more than "stay away from these crooks,
> > they got me for over $40K, please don't help them get away with it.
> 
> Yeah, it reads that way to me as well, and I'm pretty sure 
> that's -exactly-
> how it was meant.  It felt pretty hostile for an audience that's 99.9%
> likely to be entirely uninvolved.
> 
> And I think there's a fine line, there.  There's a difference between
> copyright infringement and patent infringement.  Let's assume 
> that (as Tim
> said), the "even without the processing" applies.  A data 
> schema as such is
> not copywriteable.  A document describing the schema is 
> copyrightable.  The
> schema itself as a living, breathing entity inside production 
> is probably
> not, although it -is- patentable, as it's a way of doing 
> things rather than
> an end-product on its own.  I'm not sure that just the ddefine layouts
> actually constitute copyrightable information, as opposed to 
> patentable
> information.
> 
> In addition, laws vary by country.  Several people have 
> informed me that
> copyright laws are much more stringent in Australia regarding 
> software and
> who may work on it, for instance.
> 
> At any rate, no matter my unofficial views on what may or may not be
> copyrightable vs patentable, the situation is enough to make 
> one want to
> steer about six states wide of anything even remotely like this train
> wreck.
> 
> > That being said, sorry to hear about this and hope they get 
> what they
> > have coming to them.  Good luck with this!
> 
> More like hope Tim's company gets what's coming to them--the 
> money they're
> allegedly owed.
> 
> > PS: Funny thing is that people that do this sort of things end-up
> > spending a lot more than what they are running away from.
> 
> Two options:
> 
> 1) They learn, and come back to you on their hands and knees.
> 2) They don't learn, and spend a mint.  Hey, it's their dime.
> 
> mark->
> -- 
> Audio panton, cogito singularis.
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>