RE: Another reason to not use MAPS

Moral of this story, if you have or even think you have a great idea, do NOT
become an employee (they own you), stay a contractor (you own you).


From: Conrad A. Rockenhaus []
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:17 PM
To: Andy Dills
Cc: Margie Arbon;
Subject: Re: Another reason to not use MAPS


> > > 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
> 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
> 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
> >
> > 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:

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.


i think a more important moral of this story is that public speculation on
nanog, in the absence of all the facts, about a matter currently before a
court, is a profound waste of time and bandwidth.


i think a more important moral of this story is that public
speculation on nanog, in the absence of all the facts, about a
matter currently before a court, is a profound waste of time and

laura freeman, who taught me a lot, once said something like

  if you take a bunch of smart people and give them insufficient
  data, the hypotheses that arise are utterly ridiculous

and here, it's been repeatedly demonstrated that we're not even
smart people.