Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

[Im Solo]

OK

The case still hinges on who, if anyone, owns the exclusive rights to the source code in question. That depends on what was agreed between the contractee (Bogla) and the contractor (the developer(s) who worked on the code).

Without evidence of these contract terms the case can't proceed. Further, if no explicit terms were set determining exclusive rights then automatically the rights are non-exclusive. I.e. the developer would be free to reuse the source code in other projects.

In this quote Richard says that in order for this dispute to truly be called a "theft of intellectual property" Bogla must somehow prove that he agreed all work done by quidz (who will be referred to as Joshua for the remainder of this post) would be the sole property of Bogla. It has been brought up that there was some sort of combination of both verbal and written components of a contract that both parties, bogla and Joshua, agreed to.

If you look at Joshua's original website development thread nowhere in his TOS does he say the buyer will get all rights related to the production of the site.

So we have to turn to the conversation between Joshua and Bogla for evidence that there was an agreement that Bogla would gain all rights to the code, designs, etc not going to list everything involved with creating a website. When you look at the chats there is no evidence that Bogla or Joshua agreed that Bogla would become a joint owner as @malakadang explains here

Joint Authorship:

Based on the law, I'm not convinced that it can be said that Bogla is a joint author. Here is a small article which alludes to why, specifically this excerpt which I think readily applies to this situation:

So both Richard, Malakadang, and myself can all agree that Bogla didn't write the code himself.

Malakadang then goes on the argue the "Call it my own" case. He brought up the fact that this choice of wording is VERY vague in the way that it can be interpreted multiple ways. In his own post Malakadang shows multiple ways that the wording could be interpreted. If we can all agree that "call it my own" has no clear definition than how can you say that it shows Joshua and Bogla entered a legally binding contract.

"So for contract interpretation, it happens when people raise a dispute over the wording/definitions portrayed in a contract. If the people that created the contract can not agree on a term it is often left to the court to decide the ultimate meaning of the words.

Judges have to interpret wording all the time, mostly because the contract was made by either inexperienced lawyers or persons that have no experience in law to begin with.

Common issues come up including shipping contracts, when people dont specify "delivery" by what type. For example "delivery" could mean by land, air, boat stupid things that can cause an uproar for no reason.

However Ian in this case the way you described it, along with the photos attached i don't see how the "call it my own" in question could be interpreted as all things that go into the development of a website, from the designs, pictures, code, concepts. I just can not see four simple words constituting sole ownership over the entire development project."

-Written by my father a lawyer of almost 30 years.

In this case Richard is acting as the Judge now saying that "call in my own" means bogla was actually requesting full ownership of the code.

On the other side of things, i think this email log from IHQ was completely ignored.

https://i.gyazo.com/8baedabb4ef124fa0e8e057fc4703e06.png

After reading that it is clear that the author of the code never agreed to give up ownership of the code. He also seemed to have no problem with other sites using it. Therefor what IHQ was doing is legally fine. The true owner of the work didn't care that his site was being used by others. So there was not IP theft occurring.

I just want to ask you one question: do you think Bogla obtained a non-exclusive license to use the website?

To answer this bluntly, yes. At no point did Bogla request exclusive rights. To circle back to the "call it my own" if you read it in context and don't blow things entirely out of proportion Bogla literally just meant something different from his competitors sites. At least to me reading it over completely unbiased that is what i got out of it. He didn't want the run of the mill site like everyone else. Instead it has somehow been interpreted to mean exclusive rights of all code and all development related materials. I state again i have no power here, but if IHQ disputed this in a real court i STRONGLY believe that he would win the case. There is simply no evidence that Bogla meant excluse rights.

Other point, i do not know the value of 550m at the time of the trade but it was brought up before, Statute of frauds would make a written contract mandatory if the value was over $500 usd.

I think Statute of frauds is the last thing we should be worried about though, the author of the actual code said himself that never once did he agree to give Bogla exclusive rights nor did Bogla ever ask for it. To argue he did is futile. If Richard and Malakadang thing that "call it my own" nothing i will say can change their minds. But law does not deal with ambiguity, he didn't say exclusive so it wasn't exclusive. In my mind Joshua still holds the rights to the code and development and he is the only one that could make a case against IHQ.

Yes, i think Bogla got shafted, he should of been more specific. But that does not mean IHQ should be liable for Bogla's mistakes. If Joshua does not have a problem with the selling of his property than IHQ should be unbanned and Sythe should just continue as normal.

The code was non-exclusive, Joshua holds all rights.

@malakadang @Sythe @Bogla

 

OK



In this quote Richard says that in order for this dispute to truly be called a "theft of intellectual property" Bogla must somehow prove that he agreed all work done by quidz (who will be referred to as Joshua for the remainder of this post) would be the sole property of Bogla. It has been brought up that there was some sort of combination of both verbal and written components of a contract that both parties, bogla and Joshua, agreed to.

If you look at Joshua's original website development thread nowhere in his TOS does he say the buyer will get all rights related to the production of the site.

So we have to turn to the conversation between Joshua and Bogla for evidence that there was an agreement that Bogla would gain all rights to the code, designs, etc not going to list everything involved with creating a website. When you look at the chats there is no evidence that Bogla or Joshua agreed that Bogla would become a joint owner as @malakadang explains here




So both Richard, Malakadang, and myself can all agree that Bogla didn't write the code himself.

Malakadang then goes on the argue the "Call it my own" case. He brought up the fact that this choice of wording is VERY vague in the way that it can be interpreted multiple ways. In his own post Malakadang shows multiple ways that the wording could be interpreted. If we can all agree that "call it my own" has no clear definition than how can you say that it shows Joshua and Bogla entered a legally binding contract.

"So for contract interpretation, it happens when people raise a dispute over the wording/definitions portrayed in a contract. If the people that created the contract can not agree on a term it is often left to the court to decide the ultimate meaning of the words.

Judges have to interpret wording all the time, mostly because the contract was made by either inexperienced lawyers or persons that have no experience in law to begin with.

Common issues come up including shipping contracts, when people dont specify "delivery" by what type. For example "delivery" could mean by land, air, boat stupid things that can cause an uproar for no reason.

However Ian in this case the way you described it, along with the photos attached i don't see how the "call it my own" in question could be interpreted as all things that go into the development of a website, from the designs, pictures, code, concepts. I just can not see four simple words constituting sole ownership over the entire development project."

-Written by my father a lawyer of almost 30 years.

In this case Richard is acting as the Judge now saying that "call in my own" means bogla was actually requesting full ownership of the code.

On the other side of things, i think this email log from IHQ was completely ignored.

https://i.gyazo.com/8baedabb4ef124fa0e8e057fc4703e06.png

After reading that it is clear that the author of the code never agreed to give up ownership of the code. He also seemed to have no problem with other sites using it. Therefor what IHQ was doing is legally fine. The true owner of the work didn't care that his site was being used by others. So there was not IP theft occurring.



To answer this bluntly, yes. At no point did Bogla request exclusive rights. To circle back to the "call it my own" if you read it in context and don't blow things entirely out of proportion Bogla literally just meant something different from his competitors sites. At least to me reading it over completely unbiased that is what i got out of it. He didn't want the run of the mill site like everyone else. Instead it has somehow been interpreted to mean exclusive rights of all code and all development related materials. I state again i have no power here, but if IHQ disputed this in a real court i STRONGLY believe that he would win the case. There is simply no evidence that Bogla meant excluse rights.

Other point, i do not know the value of 550m at the time of the trade but it was brought up before, Statute of frauds would make a written contract mandatory if the value was over $500 usd.

I think Statute of frauds is the last thing we should be worried about though, the author of the actual code said himself that never once did he agree to give Bogla exclusive rights nor did Bogla ever ask for it. To argue he did is futile. If Richard and Malakadang thing that "call it my own" nothing i will say can change their minds. But law does not deal with ambiguity, he didn't say exclusive so it wasn't exclusive. In my mind Joshua still holds the rights to the code and development and he is the only one that could make a case against IHQ.

Yes, i think Bogla got shafted, he should of been more specific. But that does not mean IHQ should be liable for Bogla's mistakes. If Joshua does not have a problem with the selling of his property than IHQ should be unbanned and Sythe should just continue as normal.

The code was non-exclusive, Joshua holds all rights.

@malakadang @Sythe @Bogla

Why did Quid in that screenshot say Bogla vouched for him to sell the code to PieGP? If Quid was the owner of all the rights he would not need a vouch from a third party to sell something.

 

[Im Solo]

17 U.S. Code § 201 - Ownership of copyright
See (b)

The meaning of "my own" is irrelevant assuming this is applicable. Ownership goes to Bogla by default unless otherwise stated.

I was rooting for IHQ too but I think they came to the right conclusion

im not sure if you misread the US Code but im guessing you are refurring to this section:

(b)Works Made for Hire.—
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

In circumstances where a written agreement is not in place between employer and employee, the employee may hold title to the intellectual property rights as an inventor. In these circumstances, a shop right may apply. The shop right is a common law doctrine founded in equitable principles that allows an employer to use the employee’s invention without payment to the employee if that invention was made using the employer’s time, materials, facilities, or equipment. Lariscey v. United States, 949 F.2d 1137 (Fed Cir. 1991).



Which Joshua did not use Bogla's time, materials, or facilities. This instead falls under intellectual property which in the absence of a written contract still falls under the ownership of the author.


17 U.S. Code § 201 deals mostly with actual hands on items that an employee goes to the employers facilities, uses the employers materials and equipment. There are other ownership laws that cover intellectual property.

I'm sorry but this should carry no weight in the case

 

[Im Solo]

Why did Quid in that screenshot say Bogla vouched for him to sell the code to PieGP? If Quid was the owner of all the rights he would not need a vouch from a third party to sell something.

Just like how Soul asked me if he could add my signature to his thread it was not because i own the design but rather out of good business. I still stand by the fact that Joshua didnt need to ask permission because he owned the code, but instead it was just out of good business that he ask Bogla. If Bogla had said no Joshua still could of gone ahead with it because as i said earlier Bogla never once requested exclusive rights. I'm interested in @malakadang's thoughts on my last post however

 

Just like how Soul asked me if he could add my signature to his thread it was not because i own the design but rather out of good business. I still stand by the fact that Joshua didnt need to ask permission because he owned the code, but instead it was just out of good business that he ask Bogla. If Bogla had said no Joshua still could of gone ahead with it because as i said earlier Bogla never once requested exclusive rights. I'm interested in @malakadang's thoughts on my last post however

I disagree. He was asking for a vouch, which is a public acknowledgement of assent to the sale.

I'd like to see this vouch and transaction if anyone can dig it up

 

[malakadang]

Malakadang then goes on the argue the "Call it my own" case. He brought up the fact that this choice of wording is VERY vague in the way that it can be interpreted multiple ways. In his own post Malakadang shows multiple ways that the wording could be interpreted. If we can all agree that "call it my own" has no clear definition than how can you say that it shows Joshua and Bogla entered a legally binding contract.

"So for contract interpretation, it happens when people raise a dispute over the wording/definitions portrayed in a contract. If the people that created the contract can not agree on a term it is often left to the court to decide the ultimate meaning of the words.

Judges have to interpret wording all the time, mostly because the contract was made by either inexperienced lawyers or persons that have no experience in law to begin with.

Common issues come up including shipping contracts, when people dont specify "delivery" by what type. For example "delivery" could mean by land, air, boat stupid things that can cause an uproar for no reason.

However Ian in this case the way you described it, along with the photos attached i don't see how the "call it my own" in question could be interpreted as all things that go into the development of a website, from the designs, pictures, code, concepts. I just can not see four simple words constituting sole ownership over the entire development project."

-Written by my father a lawyer of almost 30 years.

I think your father would agree that he is skipping his reasoning and only jumping to the conclusion. Ask him what he thinks the ordinary meaning of those words mean in the present context?

In this case Richard is acting as the Judge now saying that "call in my own" means bogla was actually requesting full ownership of the code.

Bogla does not have copyright of the code - only an exclusive license per our decision.

On the other side of things, i think this email log from IHQ was completely ignored.

https://i.gyazo.com/8baedabb4ef124fa0e8e057fc4703e06.png

How do you think this would affect the process by which we go about interpreting the ordinary meaning of the words 'call it my own'?

After reading that it is clear that the author of the code never agreed to give up ownership of the code. He also seemed to have no problem with other sites using it. Therefor what IHQ was doing is legally fine. The true owner of the work didn't care that his site was being used by others. So there was not IP theft occurring.

By the way I did advert to this screenshot in the beginning. I agree that Quid has ownership of the code, however, ownership is not everything. If there is an exclusive license agreement, then even the 'owner' must abide by the terms of the license.

To answer this bluntly, yes.

If there was no binding contract, how do you think this non-exclusive license came to be?

At no point did Bogla request exclusive rights. To circle back to the "call it my own" if you read it in context and don't blow things entirely out of proportion Bogla literally just meant something different from his competitors sites. At least to me reading it over completely unbiased that is what i got out of it. He didn't want the run of the mill site like everyone else. Instead it has somehow been interpreted to mean exclusive rights of all code and all development related materials. I state again i have no power here, but if IHQ disputed this in a real court i STRONGLY believe that he would win the case. There is simply no evidence that Bogla meant excluse rights.

I agree with you, and went one step further, arguing that Bogla cannot have a unique website if Quid could have created the same website for the very next person the very next day. Accordingly, interpreting the words to confer a non-exclusive license would result in an absurd view, and so I opted for the interpretation where such an absurdity was not permitted to exist.

Other point, i do not know the value of 550m at the time of the trade but it was brought up before, Statute of frauds would make a written contract mandatory if the value was over $500 usd.

This depends on the jurisdiction of the country, however look at the exceptions to this implementation of the Statute of Frauds in the US. You will see that the K will still be enforceable.

I think Statute of frauds is the last thing we should be worried about though, the author of the actual code said himself that never once did he agree to give Bogla exclusive rights nor did Bogla ever ask for it. To argue he did is futile. If Richard and Malakadang thing that "call it my own" nothing i will say can change their minds. But law does not deal with ambiguity, he didn't say exclusive so it wasn't exclusive. In my mind Joshua still holds the rights to the code and development and he is the only one that could make a case against IHQ.

Some parts of this are a bit naive quite frankly.... "the law does not deal with ambiguity..." come on. Only after the road has been cleared do you remark that the pathway is clear, but what was the pathway like before it was cleared? Only after significant analysis can we arrive at the heart of the case. Do not superimpose the ease at which you arrived at the finish line to conclude that therefore a marathon was not run. The law typifies ambiguity.

Additionally, ordinarily an exclusive licensee can sue for copyright infringement. That is the case in Australia at least under Statute if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, i think Bogla got shafted, he should of been more specific. But that does not mean IHQ should be liable for Bogla's mistakes. If Joshua does not have a problem with the selling of his property than IHQ should be unbanned and Sythe should just continue as normal.

Your analogy is like renting your house to a family, then renting the same house to another family, and saying, as I am the owner, all is good. No. All is not good. The tenant has rights too. As does an exclusive licensee.

 

[Im Solo]

Your analogy is like renting your house to a family, then renting the same house to another family, and saying, as I am the owner, all is good. No. All is not good. The tenant has rights too. As does an exclusive licensee.

Landlord/tenant would be a bad example at a house can not be reproduced. Instead I would like to look at this is the aspect of a peice of art. If you ask me to paint a unique landscape portrait that you can "call your own" we agree on a price and nothing else. I would deliver the artwork you can now call it your own, you have a piece of my art. However as the artist I never agreed to never make that print again. You never said that it was a one of one piece, and you never claimed exclusive rights over the artwork. In this case I can re-print the same artwork and sell it to other people. It is my right as the creator of the piece. If we had agreed that I could only print the artwork for you and no one else this would be a different story. To relate this to Joshua and Bogla, the code is Joshua's and Bogla never said that the code couldn't be used for anyone else. So the development being Joshua's intillectual property was his to do what he wanted with.

About the ambiguity I wasn't talking about law in general, looking back the wording was bad on my part. What I should of said is law pertaining to contracts is very exact, that's why being a contract lawyer sucks its meticulous work. Every word has a very specific meaning that is literal. Ambiguity in a contract is a bad thing, that is what I should of said.

I still don't feel that "call it my own" can somehow mean exclusive rights.

And you also bring up an exclusive license, but an exclusive license Os very specific, there is no grey areas involved. Exclusive licenses blaitently say party "X" will do/make this for party "y" and only for party "y". An exclusive license isn't just something that is decided over the interpretation of 4 words. It is instead an agreement that is written out and fully understood by both parties involved.

 

Landlord/tenant would be a bad example at a house can not be reproduced. Instead I would like to look at this is the aspect of a peice of art. If you ask me to paint a unique landscape portrait that you can "call your own" we agree on a price and nothing else. I would deliver the artwork you can now call it your own, you have a piece of my art. However as the artist I never agreed to never make that print again. You never said that it was a one of one piece, and you never claimed exclusive rights over the artwork. In this case I can re-print the same artwork and sell it to other people. It is my right as the creator of the piece. If we had agreed that I could only print the artwork for you and no one else this would be a different story. To relate this to Joshua and Bogla, the code is Joshua's and Bogla never said that the code couldn't be used for anyone else. So the development being Joshua's intillectual property was his to do what he wanted with.

About the ambiguity I wasn't talking about law in general, looking back the wording was bad on my part. What I should of said is law pertaining to contracts is very exact, that's why being a contract lawyer sucks its meticulous work. Every word has a very specific meaning that is literal. Ambiguity in a contract is a bad thing, that is what I should of said.

I still don't feel that "call it my own" can somehow mean exclusive rights.

And you also bring up an exclusive license, but an exclusive license Os very specific, there is no grey areas involved. Exclusive licenses blaitently say party "X" will do/make this for party "y" and only for party "y". An exclusive license isn't just something that is decided over the interpretation of 4 words. It is instead an agreement that is written out and fully understood by both parties involved.

The law has to be as applicable to an agreement made in good faith by lay-people as to two lawyers drafting a contract they will both agree to. You're proposing here that the contract for an exclusive license must be of a certain form and contain certain words to be legally binding. The common law doesn't work that way (except for deeds). The intention of the parties and the meanings of the words they did use are what matters in the analysis.

 

[Im Solo]

The law has to be as applicable to an agreement made in good faith by lay-people as to two lawyers drafting a contract they will both agree to. You're proposing here that the contract for an exclusive license must be of a certain form and contain certain words to be legally binding. The common law doesn't work that way (except for deeds). The intention of the parties and the meanings of the words they did use are what matters in the analysis.

Okay after this I promise I'm done, in part because a man has to sleep haha. But yes agreements can be binding when made in good faith by lay-people as you said. But in the agreement it never specifies exclusivity therefor there is none.

If you don't say the word exclusive you can not somehow conjure it out of nowhere.

I hope that what I have brought to the case carry at least some weight. Exclusivity was never discussed and I do believe that voids all of Bogla's claims. But the decision is out of my hands.

No hard feelings towards any parties involved throughout the dispute and my posts. I LOVE YOU ALL NO MATTER WHAT!

Gn :3

 

Okay after this I promise I'm done, in part because a man has to sleep haha. But yes agreements can be binding when made in good faith by lay-people as you said. But in the agreement it never specifies exclusivity therefor there is none.

If you don't say the word exclusive you can not somehow conjure it out of nowhere.

I hope that what I have brought to the case carry at least some weight. Exclusivity was never discussed and I do believe that voids all of Bogla's claims. But the decision is out of my hands.

No hard feelings towards any parties involved throughout the dispute and my posts. I LOVE YOU ALL NO MATTER WHAT!

Gn :3

If I ask you design something for me and no one else then this is an exclusivity agreement. It doesn't need to contain the word exclusive.

 

[Im Solo]

If I ask you design something for me and no one else then this is an exclusivity agreement. It doesn't need to contain the word exclusive.

Boom lied again I'm back. Bogla never said "for me and no one else" Instead you are inferring that "call it my own" means that it can not be reproduced for anyone else. However call it my own should rather be interpreted as being unique at the time of creation. Bogla wanted something his competition didn't have. But he never specified what would happen after the site was made. It was Joshua's to distribute. Back to the artwork analogy I could sell you a unique piece of art, something that has never been seen before, that is at that time unique. Then a week later make the same artwork but change something as simple as the primary color. In this case the artwork is no longer your unique piece. In the same was Joshua made a code for himself to use on boglas project. If he changes the front end then Bogla's is still unique. The back end still belongs to Joshua as that was not in the agreement.

GOODNIGHT RICHARD!
:3

 

Boom lied again I'm back. Bogla never said "for me and no one else" Instead you are inferring that "call it my own" means that it can not be reproduced for anyone else. However call it my own should rather be interpreted as being unique at the time of creation. Bogla wanted something his competition didn't have. But he never specified what would happen after the site was made. It was Joshua's to distribute. Back to the artwork analogy I could sell you a unique piece of art, something that has never been seen before, that is at that time unique. Then a week later make the same artwork but change something as simple as the primary color. In this case the artwork is no longer your unique piece. In the same was Joshua made a code for himself to use on boglas project. If he changes the front end then Bogla's is still unique. The back end still belongs to Joshua as that was not in the agreement.

GOODNIGHT RICHARD!
:3

I understand you disagree with our intrepretation of the facts but as malakdang and I and others have pointed out repeatedly an interpretation in which he is commissioning a bespoke work to call his own in order to obtain a non-exclusive license doesn't make sense.

 

[Im Solo]

I understand you disagree with our intrepretation of the facts but as malakdang and I and others have pointed out repeatedly an interpretation in which he is commissioning a bespoke work to call his own in order to obtain a non-exclusive license doesn't make sense.

I'll throw down my sword. I get it, it doesn't make sense for Bogla to buy something that could be resold to no end. I think in the future people should be more diligent with how they word agreements. It was a good brain teaser atleast. I do still think punishments should be reconsidered given the fact that the whole case hinges on interpretation. Again that's not my place to say however. @malakadang i respect the effort you put into this case it shows you care, @Sythe GG no Re. Still hope no hard feelings. Post can be deleted from public view if this is considered spam.

 

Last word on this to people running this code: IHQ was ruled to have recovered an account in another dispute. He has not paid the debt for that.

If you run this code he may still have access to your website. You should for your own sake be transitioning to a new codebase asap.

 

[Azie]

@Sythe

IHQ did tell me earlier today that once he finishes the new backends he will make a post clearing everything up.

 

@Sythe

IHQ did tell me earlier today that once he finishes the new backends he will make a post clearing everything up.

Ok good

 

[MadDev]

Last word on this to people running this code: IHQ was ruled to have recovered an account in another dispute. He has not paid the debt for that.

If you run this code he may still have access to your website. You should for your own sake be transitioning to a new codebase asap.

Adding onto this.

If you are unable to migrate to a new codebase asap, you need to get someone to inspect your code and server to look for back doors that IHQ or another developer could have added.

Back door meaning an unofficial way for them / someone else to access your sensitive information without you knowing.