> I don't think I upset them.
'Think', of course, being the key word. I *know* better :)
> Whatever did or did not happen, whatever I or you did or did not do, the
> fact remains: You used my software without a contract, against my will,
> illegaly with NC3 and Genesis.
I have a contract to supply Genesis and NetConnect (no revision mentioned)
with appp.device. IMHO it was too late to remove the device from the NC3,
due to the situation at the time (outlined earlier).
>> Simply cancel NC3, remove the device? You darn well know that appp.device
>> was an integral part of NC3 and, there are no other ppp.devices that could
>> have been licensed, so I went ahead with the pressing.
>
> So you admit you pirated my work.
I admit to the fact that you admitted in April that you 'fixed the bug' in
late Summer, 6-7 months after I first told you about it (but denied it was a
bug of appp.device) and you didn't tell me you had fixed it, until April
2000.
You had a contract with NC2 users to supply them with a working device - or
at least a device that didn't nuke with major UK ISP's - a contract that you
failed to support.
> Oh, come on! You only intend to pay me "via Haage" since you want to sell
> them NC3 and Genesis. I would not have heard anything from you again else I
> guess.
The situation with Haage came about in March, after the CD company went
bust, and I discussed 'the future' with them. The deal between me and them
was that they'd broker a deal with you, acting as a third party. They also
told me to keep quiet and let them sort out this deal - which I thought was
going reasonably well - until you decided to enter the public arena, and
widen the 'discussion'.
Strange: in the last 9 months of NC3/appp.device, this is and was the
closest we were (IMHO) to potentially sorting out a deal, yet you choose
this as the time to bring it all into the public, causing a mud slinging
match.
>> 1) We will pay, via Haage - the more you fight in public, however, the less
>> likely this is going to happen though - your choice.
>
> Haage will pay, not you.
Yes, partly correct, although via a deal I was arranging via Haage. ie. my
payment would include money paid to you - for instance, part of the deal
between me and Haage was for them to take over complete rights to STFax Pro
- any payment made for this, money will be taken from this to pay 'money
owed' to yourself.
However, this deal will not go ahead, unless the situation with you (ie.
Haage's discussions with yourself) is resolved. Unfortunately this went on
the back-burner, since Markus went on holiday, 3 weeks ago.
> ROFTL indeed. You should really talk to a lawyer. This would not be based
> on some would have or could have numbers but on the number of copies you
> pirated of course. Doubled or perhaps, under British law, even tripled.
Of course, you are fully aware of British Law. Under British Law, the act of
'reasonableness' prevails - and I think it is unreasonable that:
1) You decided to write to inform me of your willingness to pull out of a
contract, which was *not 100% fulfilled* (due to that bug with appp.device),
in writing, only a couple of weeks before going to press with the product
we'd been advertising for the last 4-5 months.
2) That you make *zero* money from appp.device sales *apart* from the sales
made via Active - so any judge would take into account 'lost sales' made
from, as you claim, us 'pirating' your device.
3) The fact that, at this point in time, the situation is attempting to be
resolved, via a third party, and either a) you are turning down their
amounts and/or b) are not advancing in talks to conclude this feud.
4) You are spending more time, right now, arguing about this in public, than
you are trying to resolve the dispute, strange IMHO. I am quite willing, I'm
trying to talk to you in private mail about this to pay you, mainly via a
third party (as they also want to license the device), although you are
unwilling to pursue these talks.
Under British Law, if you attempted to go to court based on these facts,
especially with the fact I'm actually trying to resolve the dispute,
financially, it wouldn't even get to court - the judge would throw out the
claim, before being heard within court - mainly due to the fact that you
are, at least in theory, being:
1) Offered *more* money than you would have been paid, if we'd gone ahead
with licensing the appp.device previously and for use in the future.
and, more importantly..
2) The fact that if I *had* removed appp.device, from NC3 you would have a)
not made *any* money from appp.device (!) and b) I could have sued *you* for
trying to break a contract, when you were contracted to provide the device
that ended up with a major bug, unfixed for almost 8-9 months!
With the breaking of the contract, would you really have then gone on to
provide a bug fixed device? I doubt it!
Chris.
--
Chris Wiles
Active Technologies - http://www.active-net.co.uk
_____________________________________________________________
NetConnect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an 'unsubcribe'
message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
