From whats posted below I draw the same conclusion as you Craig.
Craig Edmonds wrote:
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] <mailto:[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.
---
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.
