[probably-off-topic] Re: Another reason to not use MAPS

["Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rkuhljr () uol com br>]

> 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.