Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
This is how I see it (and I have no legal expertise). Based on the year given for the agreement (2000), the suit is based on Scott selling the code at the time Declude was founded, when he had controlling interest. We all know it was several years later that Rich Person and company bought Declude, the company. In effect, the current owners are suing for an agreement made before they purchased the company; an agreement between Scott and a company he owned. This is just conjecture based on my memory of dealing with the product for many years. Shayne Embry Original Message From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:42 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) #2 was certainly the scenario. So what's the deal. Was or is Scott being bullied out of both of his businesses? Didn't Scott maintain an equity stake in both companies? That write up on the case just sounds like thievery. Matt Andy Schmidt wrote: Well, Darin -- it may be relevant to look at the timeline. Example: 1. Declude is developed 2. Declude is purchased 3. Developer keeps source code and NOW starts to reuse it to develop DNSstuff.com vs. 1. Declude is developed 2. DNSstuff is developed 3. Declude is purchased from Developer 4. DNSstuff is also purchased from Developer I would see how concerns may be raised in the FIRST case. But in the SECOND case, there are no hidden surprises. Over time, they purchased two different applications that had previously been developed by the same developer, and obviously would share some common generic functions. If I sold you a one of a kind car and then sold you a one of a kind motorcycle -- you can't act surprised years later when you find out that I was using the same hex-nuts and headlight bulbs, where appropriate. *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Darin Cox *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:03 PM *To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com *Subject:* Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - *From:* Craig Edmonds mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com mailto:declude.junkmail@declude.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM *Subject:* RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
Hi, Well, we are all outsiders - and don't know what transpired. An alternate scenario would be - the author developed Declude, which of course contains many generic TCP functions, such as DNS lookups to check RBLS, to check MX records, to check SPF, etc. etc. The author would have obviously reused pieces of his own code library, when he also developed DNSstuff! Eventually, they first purchased Declude from the author, then purchased DNSstuff from the SAME author - clearly two entirely different applications. But anyone would reasonably expect that two products by the same author would and should share some common library code for any generic functions. Now, years later, Declude seems to have been mothballed and DNSstuff is suffering from the classic top-heavy syndrome (http://member.dnsstuff.com/info/about.php: 1 software engineer who has to produce enough code to pay 13 salaries.). That can't go on perpetually! So, how convenient that they suddenly discover that two applications developed by the same person share common libraries? Sorry but with the resumes of all these people (all being industry insiders), I find that story a bit hard to swallow. As I said - we don't have the facts, so all we can do is speculate. But looking at what I can see at the surface, I think there might easily be other explanations than what the suit alleges, amongst others, a sly way to negate on whatever obligations might still be owed to the author. Best Regards, Andy Schmidt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Edmonds Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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. --- 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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - From: Craig Edmonds To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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 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. --- 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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
Hi 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? My point was really that I am disappointed that this situation has developed between all parties. Period. Regarding the allegations of the suit - that is what they are. Simply one side of the story ala Roger Clemons [http://dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Roger_Clemens] suit against Brian McNamee. If the Declude suit ever goes to trial the facts will be revealed. Problem is I would say getting to trial is expensive - which may or may not be part of the suit intention. -Nick 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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
Well, Darin - it may be relevant to look at the timeline. Example: 1. Declude is developed 2. Declude is purchased 3. Developer keeps source code and NOW starts to reuse it to develop DNSstuff.com vs. 1. Declude is developed 2. DNSstuff is developed 3. Declude is purchased from Developer 4. DNSstuff is also purchased from Developer I would see how concerns may be raised in the FIRST case. But in the SECOND case, there are no hidden surprises. Over time, they purchased two different applications that had previously been developed by the same developer, and obviously would share some common generic functions. If I sold you a one of a kind car and then sold you a one of a kind motorcycle - you can't act surprised years later when you find out that I was using the same hex-nuts and headlight bulbs, where appropriate. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:03 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - From: Craig mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Edmonds To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry
Perhaps suing your partners is a Rich Person(tm) idea of good Corporate Stewardship(tm). It certainly is a far cry from supporting, promoting, and improving the product line, you know, the normal way a company Earns Money(tm). Andrew. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:16 AM 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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
#2 was certainly the scenario. So what's the deal. Was or is Scott being bullied out of both of his businesses? Didn't Scott maintain an equity stake in both companies? That write up on the case just sounds like thievery. Matt Andy Schmidt wrote: Well, Darin -- it may be relevant to look at the timeline. Example: 1. Declude is developed 2. Declude is purchased 3. Developer keeps source code and NOW starts to reuse it to develop DNSstuff.com vs. 1. Declude is developed 2. DNSstuff is developed 3. Declude is purchased from Developer 4. DNSstuff is also purchased from Developer I would see how concerns may be raised in the FIRST case. But in the SECOND case, there are no hidden surprises. Over time, they purchased two different applications that had previously been developed by the same developer, and obviously would share some common generic functions. If I sold you a one of a kind car and then sold you a one of a kind motorcycle -- you can't act surprised years later when you find out that I was using the same hex-nuts and headlight bulbs, where appropriate. *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Darin Cox *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:03 PM *To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com *Subject:* Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - *From:* Craig Edmonds mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com mailto:declude.junkmail@declude.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM *Subject:* RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
We all know the second example is the timeline... Darin. - Original Message - From: Andy Schmidt To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:59 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Well, Darin - it may be relevant to look at the timeline. Example: 1. Declude is developed 2. Declude is purchased 3. Developer keeps source code and NOW starts to reuse it to develop DNSstuff.com vs. 1. Declude is developed 2. DNSstuff is developed 3. Declude is purchased from Developer 4. DNSstuff is also purchased from Developer I would see how concerns may be raised in the FIRST case. But in the SECOND case, there are no hidden surprises. Over time, they purchased two different applications that had previously been developed by the same developer, and obviously would share some common generic functions. If I sold you a one of a kind car and then sold you a one of a kind motorcycle - you can't act surprised years later when you find out that I was using the same hex-nuts and headlight bulbs, where appropriate. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:03 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - From: Craig Edmonds To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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 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
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES)
And we all know that there will not be posts regarding the suit from any of the parties. -d - Original Message - From: Darin Cox To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) We all know the second example is the timeline... Darin. - Original Message - From: Andy Schmidt To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:59 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Well, Darin - it may be relevant to look at the timeline. Example: 1. Declude is developed 2. Declude is purchased 3. Developer keeps source code and NOW starts to reuse it to develop DNSstuff.com vs. 1. Declude is developed 2. DNSstuff is developed 3. Declude is purchased from Developer 4. DNSstuff is also purchased from Developer I would see how concerns may be raised in the FIRST case. But in the SECOND case, there are no hidden surprises. Over time, they purchased two different applications that had previously been developed by the same developer, and obviously would share some common generic functions. If I sold you a one of a kind car and then sold you a one of a kind motorcycle - you can't act surprised years later when you find out that I was using the same hex-nuts and headlight bulbs, where appropriate. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:03 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) Did he keep a copy of the code, or did he just use libraries he developed through the years, as all programmers do, that he used for all of his programming? It's not possible to tell that without an in-depth review of source code for both products. Also, bear in mind that programmers tend to do the same tasks the same way, so two completely separate development projects can have very similar looking code just due to the way a particular programmer solves problems and writes his/her code. Also, as someone on another list pointed out, you typically aren't buying the soure code, per se, when you buy all rights to a product. What you typically buy are the rights to all marketing for the product (names/trademarks, domain names, etc.), the customer base and any other data specific to the product, and a non-compete from the seller. While source code is necessary to continue development of the product, and is included in the sale, copyrights on the source code are often meaningless due to the above points. In this case, the additional product is not a competing product. I don't know the terms of the sale, however, so it is possible that the source code was central to the purchase. However, the above two points still apply. Darin. - Original Message - From: Craig Edmonds To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Re:Declude vs Perry (ES) 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 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
