In Praise of Josh Timonen

[Don't Panic]

In a google search for Josh timonen this thread is the first result on the second page.

[Blondie]

If Josh Timonen's company was contracted, orally or in writing, to create a product and then manage it then the IP rights belong to those that hired his company. It's really quite straightforward. The only kink is that it is an oral contract, by the accounts we have now - this will make things more difficult for RD, but the case is not without precedent.

[Bella Fortuna]

Wonder if he had oral or written contracts with the other website work he did...

[my_wan]

If Josh Timonen's company was contracted, orally or in writing, to create a product and then manage it then the IP rights belong to those that hired his company. It's really quite straightforward. The only kink is that it is an oral contract, by the accounts we have now - this will make things more difficult for RD, but the case is not without precedent.

Not necessarily with an oral contract, which it was in this case per documents filed with the court by RD's lawyers. If you hire an independent contractor to produce a work without a signed IP agreement, the IP rights default to the contractor, not the company that hired them. It basically amounts to a non-transfered purchase of rights to use the IP belonging to the independent contractor. Copyright law explicitly depends on written agreements in most such cases.

However, there are conditions which limit this default ownership, but are too complex to lay out completely. These limitations also involve a lot of legal grey areas. A lot of the user agreements we commonly check the box on are written from the perspective of legal caution, and may or may not hold in court in some circumstances.

Maybe I should try to enumerate the differences in case law and what 'appears' to be involved here. Then again maybe not. IP law scares most lawyers.

[Svartalf]

Is that why Calvin's father is a patent lawyer?

[Blondie]

If Josh Timonen's company was contracted, orally or in writing, to create a product and then manage it then the IP rights belong to those that hired his company. It's really quite straightforward. The only kink is that it is an oral contract, by the accounts we have now - this will make things more difficult for RD, but the case is not without precedent.

Not necessarily with an oral contract, which it was in this case per documents filed with the court by RD's lawyers. If you hire an independent contractor to produce a work without a signed IP agreement, the IP rights default to the contractor, not the company that hired them. It basically amounts to a non-transfered purchase of rights to use the IP belonging to the independent contractor. Copyright law explicitly depends on written agreements in most such cases.

However, there are conditions which limit this default ownership, but are too complex to lay out completely. These limitations also involve a lot of legal grey areas. A lot of the user agreements we commonly check the box on are written from the perspective of legal caution, and may or may not hold in court in some circumstances.

Maybe I should try to enumerate the differences in case law and what 'appears' to be involved here. Then again maybe not. IP law scares most lawyers.

Quick question then: Who owns the IP rights on the products sold through the store (DVDs, etc.)?

Unless Josh can make the case that he owns the rights to the products sold through the store he 'created' and 'managed' but maintains that he owns the rights to the store itself, then he's walking right into a legal trap. He'll have to maintain that there was no contract between him and RDF to claim the former, and if he does so then it's implicit that he had no legal right to be selling Dawk-wares on his 'created' and 'managed' store. It just don't work. This is why I really want to see the statement from his lawyers (and part of the reason I suspect it is so slow in coming).

[my_wan]

Quick question then: Who owns the IP rights on the products sold through the store (DVDs, etc.)?

Unless Josh can make the case that he owns the rights to the products sold through the store he 'created' and 'managed' but maintains that he owns the rights to the store itself, then he's walking right into a legal trap. He'll have to maintain that there was no contract between him and RDF to claim the former, and if he does so then it's implicit that he had no legal right to be selling Dawk-wares on his 'created' and 'managed' store. It just don't work. This is why I really want to see the statement from his lawyers (and part of the reason I suspect it is so slow in coming).

Yes you have a point, with a bit more complication. That's why I said it looks like RD holds the ace card. A more dangerous game than I think Josh invisioned when he set himself on this path. I suspect he took a basic reading of IP law and thought it was a simple matter to circumvent embezzelment, which is too simple minded.

In effect he has to argue he owns the IP rights to the products, which RD payed him for the right to sell and manage those sales (or some variant). The IP ownership will be itemized though, and I don't see him with a case at all on some items. This doesn't really work though, since the management of those sales was effectively salaried, ongoing payments, in spite of the 1099 form. So whichever way Josh wants to try and claim, the claimed oral agreement variants leads to troubles in different ways.

Even if he tries making the case that he paid RD for the rights to run his store on RD's site, it doesn't square with what he paid RD, or RD payed him. And especially doesn't square with the prominent on site claims that all proceeds go to RDF, as "all proceeds" then constituted anything Josh chose not to spend himself. I am curious as what his tax filing looked like, and how he represented a salary from his own company, if at all.

He is even stuck with that part of his company legally being a charitable enterprise, at the store represented it as such. So simply saying his company his money gets him in a world of hurt, because the marketing was based on charitable claims.

So I'm still trying to figure out how he is going to argue the oral agreement to cover his ass. I'm very doubtfull it can be done, and can even end up with serious prison time going about it wrong. If it's even possible not to do wrong. What exactly he would be guilty of would be based in part on his own defense.

Yet I'm very sure Josh took a basic reading of IP law long ago, and thought he could derive a simple defense against embezzelment. My company plus my IP equals my money doesn't cut it for a defense.

So, Josh, I let it drop. Does your lawyers care, or are they just going to win the points you claim and let what happens happen to you? For the lawyers winning the specified claims is enough for them. I would be scared shitless in those shoes!!!

[Cormac]

If Josh Timonen's company was contracted, orally or in writing, to create a product and then manage it then the IP rights belong to those that hired his company. It's really quite straightforward. The only kink is that it is an oral contract, by the accounts we have now - this will make things more difficult for RD, but the case is not without precedent.

Unless there was an assignment or waiver of those IP rights.

[JimC]

Yon Timonen has a lean and hungry look...

Burying is better than praising...

[klr]

Yon Timonen has a lean and hungry look...

Burying is better than praising...

... any excuse to bastardise the Bard.

[laklak]

I think it was riddlemethis.

Is that really him? Now I've clapped eyes on him, I totally understand. That's a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one. This is just Revenge of the Nerd really, isn't it.