I am not a lawyer so dont understand 100%. So Scott Perry agreed to sell the code but kept a copy anyway and when the new owners of Declude went to raise capital they found out that Scott Perry had already developed an additional product with the code they had bought.
I dont see the problem myself? The new owners of declude are just protecting their interests no? Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet Services W: www.123marbella.com <http://www.123marbella.net/> E : [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer Sent: 09 September 2008 16:16 To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry Hi David - Below was forwarded to me - as a long time Decluder I am very disappointed in seeing something like this - -Nick http://dozierinternetlawpc.cybertriallawyer.com/computer-lawyer DECLUDE, INC. AND DNSSTUFF, LLC. v. R. SCOTT PERRY DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON) 1:08-cv-11072 FILED: 06/25/08 The ownership of source code and the ownership of the code in general used to build a website is often an overlooked issue. Make sure that you have spelled out not only the ownership of the code but also the requirements relating to what code can be retrieved from the public domain. If you are using a web developer who retains ownership of source code then you risk having that developer use the code with future competitors at much lower costs and with the benefit of your intellectual capital in developing the architecture, engineering, and business processes. Declude purchased the Defendant's anti-virus, anti-spam and anti-hijacking software in September, 2000, and sold the products as "Declude Virus", "Declude Junkmail", and "Declude Hijack". The Defendant, R. Scott Perry, allegedly used the same source code in developing an additional product, and when the Plaintiff went to venture capitalists to raise capital, the detailed due diligence revealed that Defendant had retained a copy of the source code contrary to the provisions of the purchase agreement in 2000, and had again sold some of the same code to the Plaintiff in the new product he had launched. The Plaintiff has sued the individual Defendant for copyright infringement, breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1190. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
