Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

As much as you argue the point of a verbal contract being present you can not dispute that "call my own" in not way is a substitute for

The owner will own all of its proprietary information as included in the Services, as well as all source code, object code, screens, documentation, Digital programming, operating instructions, design concepts other documentation developed for or specifically relating to the owner's information processing, all of the Owner's source documents, stored data, and other information of any kind, and reports and notes prepared by the Designer, will be "works for hire" under applicable United States copyright laws, and therefor the property of the Owner. Such work may not be used by the designer for any other purpose except for the benefit of the Owner.

I'm sorry but if you knew anything in depth about contracts you would know that Bogla saying "call my own" in no way bound all rights to him as the buyer. They never agreed that Bogla would be the exclusive owner of the code.

To further debunk, if i were to say "i want a Porsche 911 of my own" yes i own that Porsche but the dealership/manufacturer still maintains ownership of the designs etc. If i had a written agreement with Porsche that i was buying the rights to all 911 to include all copyrights then at that point only do i actually own the full product.

Contracts are often misunderstood by many which is why they are drafted by real laywers not armchair lawyers. No average keyboard warrior could actually explain this situation in full however in brief Bogla never agreed to have full rights over the product.

Could explain further if needed

 

I benefit in no way regardless of the outcome of this case, there is no bias. I just don't believe this case was handled well. Bogla should be pursuing Quid and Quid should be pursuing IHQ.

EDIT: As much fun as it was debating law with you, you are right that this is not my dispute and I have no right chiming in with my input. Thanks for the law practice.

 

You being involved with ScapeGold would bias your decision on the outcome though, just my two cents.

 

If I really cared, I would be pursuing this debate further. I've just witnessed how RaSc hasn't been fair with punishments and I've been apart of it as well. I'm also not part of this dispute so I shouldn't be posting anyway. Have a good night @Sythe

 

Law I would say limited experience, come from a family of lawyers it sucks.... However I am well versed in Contracts specifically.

Yes a verbal contract can and has been proven to hold up just as any contract would. However not for things as involved at this. I can't say "hey rich buddy make me a site to call my own." you "say yea sure Ian NP dog." and have that some how qualify as a contract. even if they discussed what Bogla wanted in the site exchanged ideas etc. Thats all extra bullshit. Never once did Bogla say he wanted exclusive rights, never claimed ownership over any code, back end or front end. I can't believe it myself to be honest after taking with bogla you can just tell hes a smart guy. But in my opinion i think it was either him being lazy or a lack of diligence. He at no point claimed ownership and has no claim over the code. It is not his code and any lawyer could tell you that.

You even said like two posts ago that there really wasn't a verbal agreement, there were "some aspects" of both a written and verbal. Thats just foolish, i get it Bogla is a super donor but that doesnt mean you make stuff up or make excuses for him. Bogla fucked up, he doesn't own the code and this whole report is void. If you would like to discuss privately about contracting you can contact me but i do charge an hourly rate for contracting. This isnt slander towards anyone but to say that three words give Bogla complete ownership is stupid.

 

thats all im going to say, completely un bias, dont care about gold shops or any of that just want people to know this made up contract doesnt exist. Done take it as you will!

 

The issue is you are putting the final agreement for this contract on the words "I need something I can call my own", and Quid replying "yeah for sure". Neither party in this situation knew a contract was being created or agreed to a contract, so unless you find another place this happens, then meeting of the minds did not happen.

 

yes the parties could intend to be be bound and that would meet the basis of an agreement in a legal relationship, that does not imply that all rights, copyright's, re sale rights are given to Bogla. These things would have to explicitly stated and agreed upon, or else the owner, which would be Quid and whoever helped him develop the code, still has these rights, or owns the intellectual property.

 

that would be the "call my own" part?

 

I lied. I will make one more post. If the entire basis of your argument rests on the fact that you and @malakadang agreed that's a joke. I get it malakadang is what a law STUDENT (if I was properly informed) that means he most likely doesn't have any actual experience in drafting contracts. As much as he may know or yourself do either of you have any experience in drafting real contracts that are legally binding, that have in fact held up in court. If so feel free to call me a dumb ass. But as you tried to say it is not evident that they agreed that Bogla would be given all rights to the code. The word code was never even exchanged. If malakadang would like a lesson in contracting I suppose I could change my mind and offer it for free, because as someone that pursues the profession of law he should be correctly informed. I know no matter what a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT says nothing will change. You've made up your mind. But as I said before the community should understand that this case was improperly handled and decided lacking any proof at all. I know this will probably effect my chances at gaining any type of staff on the forum. But understand when someone is wrong on a subject THAT I ACTUALLY KNOW AS A TRADE I'm going to correct them. Disagreeing with rich is probably a death sentence but it's my duty to be unbiased when others can't. Probably fucked for this but YOLO!

 

Going back to the "My Own" discussion, as this is really what this is about.

Gyazo - 0cd899f06a528a0a8d8dcc7f7c38e68b.jpg
But I need a website I can call my own. This means one of four things

• I own the website
• The design is unique to me
• The features are unique to me (close to design)
• The code is unique to me & I have ownership of it (or at least exclusive use)

----------

• The first is redundant (Bogla already owned the site)
• GFX is unique to Bogla, but he was going to pay someone else to do it
• I see no unique features that Bogla requested, perhaps he did but I dont see
• We are forced to assume this is what we meant.

Sure, in the eyes of the beholder this case looks differently to everyone. But I believe @Sythe and @malakadang made this determination as to what he meant by "my own". With absence of a formal contract I see no other way to determine this case. There is no way to rightly understand what Bogla meant at the time, so we are forced to try to extrapolate what he meant and what the contract was.

 

What exactly do you guys want explored further?

I would like to reiterate that I thought this case turned on what 'Call it my own' meant. If you guys think a turn was missed, let us know (I can see some issues raised above, but I don't know what has been resolved and what hasn't been). Additionally, I thought that it could have gone either way, but I erred on the side of an exclusive license based on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the context they were used in. If anyone would like to post their interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the words used in the context they were used in, feel free.

When a term in the contract is being charged with uncertainty, judges will literally quote a dictionary in an attempt to define what the actual words used mean. This is also why some contracts have a definition section.

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

 

Isn't this where Contra proferentem comes into play, and why it was brought up in the first place. Malakadang just said it would be referred to as a last resort which it seems we are at if we just have to guess what Bogla meant, he doesn't know either.

 

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