For a long time, I liked MAPS. They were doing good things for free. Then they started charging for access to their data, under the excuse that it costs so much, they just need to start covering their expenses. No big deal, right? They can't bleed money. I understand. Now, MAPS has filed a lawsuit against a former employee. Why? Because he might interfere with their ability to make money by giving away something for free that they charge for! Read about it on slashdot, I don't feel like pasting URLs. But the bottom line is that Nick Nicholas, who was Executive Director of MAPS for a bit a couple of years back, has this to say: "Last year I decided to write a book about the history of MAPS. My intent was to focus on the companies that sued MAPS and abused the legal system in order to prevent MAPS from exercising its legitimate free speech rights. I wanted to portray Paul and Dave Rand as beleaguered but slightly flawed heroes. However, my opinion of MAPS was forever changed this past April when it decided to sue DUL founder, Gordon Fecyk, after Gordon attempted to exercise a December 1998 contract he entered into with Paul Vixie in his capacity as MAPS CEO. ... It seems that MAPS has learned a great deal from the lawsuits brought against it by Harris Interactive and others, and has adopted the same slimy tactics. In particular, the affidavits filed by Margie Arbon and Anne Mitchell are full of factual errors and material misrepresentations. I will add my commentary on these affidavits at a later date." So, you who subscribe to MAPS: When will you be cancelling your subscriptions? It's no longer about stopping spam with them, now it's about money. FWIW, the other blacklists out there are just as good. I particularly like njabl.org. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:04 PM -0400 Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> wrote:
<...> Now, MAPS has filed a lawsuit against a former employee. Why? Because he might interfere with their ability to make money by giving away something for free that they charge for!
Your premise is inaccurate. Gordon had stated that he would be selling "his" DUL, not giving it away. MAPS has no objection to Gordon starting (or selling) his own dial-up list. We do object to Gordon copying internal MAPS files, and the database to his system, *while still an employee* and calling them his own. Regardless of claims to the contrary, there *is* no contract, There is an email discussing the future *writing* of a contract, and further mail from Gordon saying he didn't want to get into details. The matter was never discussed again, nor was a contract ever written. Despite this, MAPS returned to Gordon the data he came with. Again, despite the fact that no contract exists, MAPS also offered to let Gordon keep a copy of the database he had, and even use it to seed his own list, providing he sign an indemnity agreement just like any other entity with a copy of our data must sign. We also agreed to letting him continue to use the term "DUL" Gordon refused to sign that agreement. In lieu of signing that agreement, Gordon digitally signed a document stating that he had destroyed the data and other information he took from MAPS servers. Four days later, MAPS received email from *Gordon's attorney* stating that since the digitally signed email was not "executed" it was not valid, and there was no such data. Gordon admitted to two parties in email that he had a copy of the DUL, current as of the day he left MAPS. Gordon did offer to drop the issue if MAPS would pay him for every contract it writes. Data and other copyrighted material that had been created by MAPS staff (including but not limited to Gordon) had been removed from our system, without our knowledge or consent. The person in possession of the information refused to sign basically the same contract as all subscribers sign, and notified us, via an attorney that he would not honor his own digitally signed certification that the data had *already* been destroyed. Precisely what other course of action could MAPS take?
So, you who subscribe to MAPS: When will you be cancelling your subscriptions? It's no longer about stopping spam with them, now it's about money. FWIW, the other blacklists out there are just as good. I particularly like njabl.org.
For those wishing to actually *read* the filings before passing judgement: http://mail-abuse.org/dul_info/ -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Margie Arbon Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC Director of Operations margie@mail-abuse.org http://mail-abuse.org
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Margie Arbon wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:04 PM -0400 Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> wrote:
<...> Now, MAPS has filed a lawsuit against a former employee. Why? Because he might interfere with their ability to make money by giving away something for free that they charge for!
<...>
Precisely what other course of action could MAPS take?
You could let him do whatever he wants with it. The premise of you charging for access to the various databases was based on a need to cover cost, not a desire to profit. Now you act with motivations specifically based on a desire to protect profit. In other words, you have no cred on this street corner. You have no moral high ground. You're just another microsft or network solutions complaining about how unfair it is, the injustice of the world! You used to be the vigilante force patrolling the net, looking to stop spam by any means neccessary. You did so because that was the what the net needed. Then you started to charge for it. Seems reasonable, and while it upset a lot of long-time contributors (you're making me pay for a service I helped build?), it made sense from the point of view that "Hey, we're losing our shirts here, we need money." So, now, instead of fighting spam for free, you're fighting a spam fighter, the legal bills of which are paid for with the revenues generated based on you selling the intellectual property contributed by many people! What other course of action could MAPS take? You could throw out the people making decisions with their over-stuffed pocketbooks and re-invent yourself.
So, you who subscribe to MAPS: When will you be cancelling your subscriptions? It's no longer about stopping spam with them, now it's about money. FWIW, the other blacklists out there are just as good. I particularly like njabl.org.
For those wishing to actually *read* the filings before passing judgement:
For those wishing to actually *think* about what MAPS is really doing here before passing judgement: http://www.chickenboner.com/lawsuit/ Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Andy Dills wrote:
<snip>
Now, MAPS has filed a lawsuit against a former employee. Why? Because he might interfere with their ability to make money by giving away something for free that they charge for!
<...>
Precisely what other course of action could MAPS take?
You could let him do whatever he wants with it. The premise of you charging for access to the various databases was based on a need to cover cost, not a desire to profit. Now you act with motivations specifically based on a desire to protect profit.
The premise of charging covered costs to MAPS. It could be easily inferred that one of thoses costs is the providing of salaries and T&E to employees of MAPS. The DUL was expanded, improved, and worked on by both the former employee and the other employees at MAPS, thereby making it a product of MAPS, not solely of Gordon Fecyk any longer. While working on the DUL, Gordon was being paid by MAPS, was provided equipment by MAPS, and was supported by other MAPS employees, to build the DUL to where it is right now. Therefore, the DUL is legally property of MAPS. Take this for example: You are working on a security product to deal with script kiddies. Security company A likes the idea, and brings you on, as a full time employee. You're paid and provided assistance to develop a and improve this method for dealing with script kiddies by security company a. You develop the product, and security company a provides it as a service. You leave security company a or your contract expires with security company a. Do you go out and sell this service because you developed it? No, you legally can not. You legally can not because security company paid you as a full time employee and assisted you to develop this product, therefore, it is the intelluctual property of security company a. Gordon had an idea. MAPS hired him, provided him with tools, provided him with industry contacts, provided him with the assistance of other employees, and provided him with a paycheck to improve and build on the DUL. Due to MAPS' assistance, Gordon, with the help of other MAPS employees, developed a very excellent service. Since MAPS provided all of these items to Gordon, he was developing a service that MAPS and MAPS only could provide, in that form anyway. If Gordon went out, developed another DUL on his own, developed his own independant documentation, etc., then MAPS would be invalid in suing Gordon. However, that's not what he did. He took data that MAPS paid him and others to develop. He took documentation that he wrote while MAPS was paying him to do it. He took a model that MAPS paid him to develop. He stole from MAPS, pure and simple, and stealing is dishonorable, stupid, and WRONG, and he deserves what he gets.
In other words, you have no cred on this street corner. You have no moral high ground. You're just another microsft or network solutions complaining about how unfair it is, the injustice of the world!
This is not the case; as I said before, he was being paid by MAPS to develop his idea, to improve upon it, and other things. Taking something from a third party, even though you developed it, and selling it as your own when someone else paid for it is wrong, period. What he's doing meets the true definition of "theft." Lets take it to another level. Xecunet hires someone, and that person has this great idea on how to make some webhosting solution better than everyone elses. Xecunet develops it, provides it as a "free upgrade" but then realizes that they need to cover some costs, so you start charging a little extra. Fine and good, right? Well, your employee leaves and goes to some big webhosting company, and implements the idea. You paid him to develop the idea, and assisted with the research, how do you feel about that? Is he entitled to do that, to take something he developed for your company and implement it somewhere else? I wouldn't think so, then someone would of taken Windows from Microsoft a while back, and sold it as "Blinds" or something like that.
You used to be the vigilante force patrolling the net, looking to stop spam by any means neccessary. You did so because that was the what the net needed. Then you started to charge for it. Seems reasonable, and while it upset a lot of long-time contributors (you're making me pay for a service I helped build?), it made sense from the point of view that "Hey, we're losing our shirts here, we need money."
So, now, instead of fighting spam for free, you're fighting a spam fighter, the legal bills of which are paid for with the revenues generated based on you selling the intellectual property contributed by many people!
What other course of action could MAPS take? You could throw out the people making decisions with their over-stuffed pocketbooks and re-invent yourself.
Stealing is wrong, and stealing needs to be stopped, period. MAPS is not fighting a "spam fighter." MAPS is fighting someone that was a former employee paid to develop a service to the level its at right now, so MAPS could provide it. Now he took the data used to provide that service, and everything related to it and is now marketing it as "his own" when in fact, its not.
So, you who subscribe to MAPS: When will you be cancelling your subscriptions? It's no longer about stopping spam with them, now it's about money. FWIW, the other blacklists out there are just as good. I particularly like njabl.org.
For those wishing to actually *read* the filings before passing judgement:
For those wishing to actually *think* about what MAPS is really doing here before passing judgement:
I looked. That still doesn't defend the fact that Gordon was being paid to improve this service by MAPS, that's pure and simple. Just to give you some background on that, read this: http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook And to just clarify what I'm pointing out in this: "Naturally, you don't need a copyright license for material which you create yourself. However, you should be aware that the rules regarding ownership of copyright are complex. You should not assume that you own the copyright if you pay an independent contractor to create the work (or part of it). In fact,generally the copyright in a work is owned by the individual who creates the work, except for full-time employees working within the scope of their employment and copyrights which are assigned in writing." Gordon was a full time employee. His work is property of MAPS. MAPS is on the right, and they are on the right with what they are doing, period. --conradr
On Wed, 8 May 2002, Conrad A. Rockenhaus wrote:
Lets take it to another level. Xecunet hires someone, and that person has this great idea on how to make some webhosting solution better than everyone elses. Xecunet develops it, provides it as a "free upgrade" but then realizes that they need to cover some costs, so you start charging a little extra. Fine and good, right?
Well, your employee leaves and goes to some big webhosting company, and implements the idea. You paid him to develop the idea, and assisted with the research, how do you feel about that? Is he entitled to do that, to take something he developed for your company and implement it somewhere else? I wouldn't think so, then someone would of taken Windows from Microsoft a while back, and sold it as "Blinds" or something like that.
We would have prevented this contractually. As would any company. According to Nick Nicholas, who hired him, such contractual obligations were deliberately left out of the employment contract. Now, I'm perfectly willing to submit to the fact that I don't know Nick Nicholas' agenda or involvement peripheral to the events discussed. However, he claims to be the man who hired Gordon, so this would seem to be reliable to some degree. Please comment on this...I don't claim to have a deeper understanding than exists from reading the filing and various responses. Maybe you do. I agree with you, though, if you say that because he didn't get the contract put in place initially, he had no leg to stand on. He doesn't really have a claim, and thus he backed down, and gave up. It just bugs me on some deep level that a company that builds itself on the efforts of many volunteers, who asks for donations for a legal fund, who acts like a non-profit organization for so long, goes out and spends money executing a lawsuit in another country against a man who had already publicly certified his compliance with MAPS' demands, a man who had helped build MAPS. There had to be a better solution. That's why all the "rabid frothing" as somebody else put it. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
MAPS has no objection to Gordon starting (or selling) his own dial-up list. We do object to Gordon copying internal MAPS files, and the database to his system, *while still an employee* and calling them his own.
The big issue in this process is what "buying back DUL for US$10" at original Gordon/Vixie communication means. If it means what Gordon claims to, what he did was in his right. Otherwise, it's stealing.
Regardless of claims to the contrary, there *is* no contract, There is an email discussing the future *writing* of a contract, and further mail from Gordon saying he didn't want to get into details. The matter was never discussed again, nor was a contract ever written.
Failure of both parts in making things clear before more time and resources (both MAPS' and Gordon's) were put into DUL.
Despite this, MAPS returned to Gordon the data he came with.
Gordon had once brought a seed to MAPS... that seed have grown into a big tree, and MAPS gave him back the seed.
Again, despite the fact that no contract exists, MAPS also offered to let Gordon keep a copy of the database he had, and even use it to seed his own list, providing he sign an indemnity agreement just like any other entity with a copy of our data must sign. We also agreed to letting him continue to use the term "DUL"
I failed to see that offer on the affidavities...
Gordon refused to sign that agreement.
Wouldn't the standard MAPS license agreement prevent him from doing business selling the data or services based on that data ?
In lieu of signing that agreement, Gordon digitally signed a document stating that he had destroyed the data and other information he took from MAPS servers.
Bad or no counseling...
Four days later, MAPS received email from *Gordon's attorney* stating that since the digitally signed email was not "executed" it was not valid, and there was no such data.
Legal workarounds to a bad decision.
Gordon admitted to two parties in email that he had a copy of the DUL, current as of the day he left MAPS.
Which is inline with his view of the DUL ownership.
Gordon did offer to drop the issue if MAPS would pay him for every contract it writes.
Which sounds like a business remedy to a legal dispute; many of such offers are usually seen in settlements.
Data and other copyrighted material that had been created by MAPS staff (including but not limited to Gordon) had been removed from our system, without our knowledge or consent. The person in possession of the information refused to sign basically the same contract as all subscribers sign, and notified us, via an attorney that he would not honor his own digitally signed certification that the data had *already* been destroyed.
Precisely what other course of action could MAPS take?
Thru arbitration/mediation/conciliation, including attorneys but no court. As this ultimately comes down to try reading Gordon's and Vixie's thoughts of 1999, there is very little room for law-based decision; reading affidavities of both parties that are revised over and over by each side attorney won't probably offer any fact-finding opportunity (cross-examination is much more productive to that goal), and at the end it will probably be either a decision on flip of a coin, or who has better lawyers. I think MAPS should defend its point of view, but rushed to court instead of pursuing a reasonable agreement with a former contributor. The decision to do so, the process documents and press coverage may be more damaging to MAPS reputation on the industry than damages MAPS claims Gordon has caused. Rubens Kuhl Jr.
participants (4)
-
Andy Dills -
Conrad A. Rockenhaus -
Margie Arbon -
Rubens Kuhl Jr.