9000maps Lawsuit Threat - EtQ - They ask for a favour and they complain 9 years later

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
etqglenn said:
To put this to bed, please provide a copy of the communication from EtQ asking you for such a favor.

Sincerely,
Glenn McCarty
CEO
EtQ Inc.
Read through the thread. Those were put up YEARS ago as a favour. I don't have copies of e-mails from 9 years ago. There wasn't even advertising on the site until December 2003. The internet has changed. It doesn't suprise me that I may have contacted your company back in 1999. I recommended to some clients that they take a look at the package. I may have called for current pricing or something.

I'm glad you posted, though, because it shows where your company is at. Nine years after the fact and a lawyer sends out a nasty letter. You could have called if you had a problem, but no - A nasty letter from a lawyer.

Even the content of those maps was general. They were 'standard' boilerplate for people who want to start off with boxed templates. The flow charts were not particularly unique.

A letter from a lawyer - Business must be bad.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Wow! I'd like to cancel this thread on account of plain stupidity!

  1. The action requested by attorney was accomplished within 15 minutes of threat receipt.
  2. Marc replied in his post:
    Back in 1997 I was contacted by someone who claimed to be from EtQ asking about advertising. I did not accept advertising until 22 December 2003. At the time I did not agree to any advertising, but the model was interesting and I agreed to post an html version I was sent by someone at EtQ as an illustration of online integrated flow charts.

    I did not credit EtQ because, as I explained, I did not accept advertising at that time - I did it as a courtesy. They were (9 years ago) a good example of a linked flow chart example. Of course 9 years later, this is all 'old stuff'.
    (apparently a good faith acceptance of a modest request - Marc paid for bandwidth for 9 years to carry this.)
  3. Who cares nine years later who, if anyone, first presented the material to Marc? Statute of limitations for the original act is long past. Most well-run companies would have long ago discarded such information as obsolete.
  4. The smart thing would have been for both attorney and his client to simply say, "Thanks." Carrying on the issue can only result in damage to the credibility of EtQ. (There's an old saying about picking fights with folks who buy ink by the barrel - I'm sure it would apply equally to a guy in the Quality business picking a fight with a guy who has a world-wide readership of tens of thousands of Quality practitioners!)
 
E

etqglenn

Facts About the Miss Use of EtQ Intellectual Property

Randy,
Our issue is simply one of the miss use of our material. Our issue is the same, as any author would have if their book were published without their permission. We have no record authorizing Marc to publish our material nor does it make sense that we would have permitted the publishing given the value of the product. Marc's position just does not make sense.

Our interest is to protect our material... that is it. Marc has seen fit to launch a campaign justifying his actions by slandering us as greedy and calling into question our products... we see this as one mistake after another. We again ask on what basis are these accusations and recommendation being made?

The only positive thing that could come of this would be a better process whereby Elsmar Cove researches the authorization for use of the copyrighted material posted on the site.

Once again, thank you for removing our material and we wish you best in all your endeavors.


Sincerely,
Glenn McCarty
CEO
EtQ Inc.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Steve Prevette said:
I'd suggest calling it square and deleting the thread.
I agree and will in a day. This came about because of a lawsuit threat. I do not take lightly to threats and believe they should be made public. Mr. McCarty should have called me rather than have his lawyer send a threatening letter.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Marc said:
I agree and will in a day. This came about because of a lawsuit threat. I do not take lightly to threats and believe they should be made public. Mr. McCarty should have called me rather than have his lawyer send a threatening letter.

At this point there's no telling what actually happened nine years ago, although given your own track record in respecting intellectual property rights there's no reason to believe that your account isn't accurate. McCarty made the mistake of letting an overzealous attorney run amok. It's possible to protect copyrights, patents and trademarks without the threat of lawsuits. Legal action should be considered (or threatened) only when more reasonable means have been exhausted.

McCarty said:
The only positive thing that could come of this would be a better process whereby Elsmar Cove researches the authorization for use of the copyrighted material posted on the site.

Physician, heal thyself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if McCarty had picked up a phone and discussed the matter with Marc instead of allowing his attorney to thump his chest for him.
 
M

morgand - 2006

lesson to all

This is another, very interesting mind you, reminder of the importance of keeping records of everything you do and for as long as you possibly can. In an age were lawyers are starting to outnumber medical practitioners (in part due to the increase in medical lawsuits-mmm?), we all need to cover our bums because the lawyers are out to generate revenue just like everyone else.
 

CarolX

Trusted Information Resource
Claes Gefvenberg said:
This is of course quite ridiculous, and backfires badly: Talk about poor PR... I don't suppose it will increase their business? :rolleyes:

/Claes

Just add a little more!
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
Jim Wynne said:
...given your own track record in respecting intellectual property rights there's no reason to believe that your account isn't accurate.
No kidding. Perform a search using the term "copyright" to view numerous posts by Marc, moderators and members.

Jim Wynne said:
It's possible to protect copyrights, patents and trademarks without the threat of lawsuits. Legal action should be considered (or threatened) only when more reasonable means have been exhausted. ... We wouldn't be having this discussion if McCarty had picked up a phone and discussed the matter with Marc instead of allowing his attorney to thump his chest for him.
Wes Bucey said:
It puts me in mind of a guy who walks up to you, punches you square in the nose and then says, "Let's negotiate!"
Exactly.

Marc said:
I do not take lightly to threats and believe they should be made public.
I would feel the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom