When Threatened By Lawyers for Licence Violations?

An anonymous reader asks: "I help run the a small branch-office (15 staff) in a foreign country. Today I received a letter from Borland's lawyer saying that we are illegally using their software. We spoke to the programmers and with their permission, we did a 100% check of all the staff's PC. We found NO evidence of violations. The Borland rep/lawyer mentioned that their HQ has received online registration of their commercial software in the companies name. They refused to name the software and the person involved. I told them what we did but they insist we pay. But pay for what? Borland's lawyer has given us 10 days to act and reply. I feel threaten and angry. Other than paying good money for a lawyer to defend what I view as Borland threatening us, what can I do to get Borland to pay for my wasted time and my lawyer's fee. Slashdot users, anyone has receive such threats from Borland or other companies ?" It seems that when dealing with commercial software, any vendor you deal with can level these kinds of accusations, which will result in Cease and Desist letters appearing in your CIO's inbox. Many times, these letters show up on the basis of very little and sometimes incorrect information. How can a company accused of infringement convince the software publisher that no such infraction has occurred (assuming the company is innocent) without spending a barrel full of dollars to prove it? Update: 12/26 Noon, EDT by C :A few spelling errors corrected. Sorry about that.

Comments

Fishing

[airuck]

You have already responded correctly. You investigated the accusation, determined that it is incorrect, and communicated your position. They are fishing, which is exactly what licensing officers get paid to do. Ignore them.

I run a biotech company and received a similar communication on Christmas Eve [Merry Christmas]:

You may not be aware that [technique] is a patented process and that performing [technique]-based service assays for third parties (or internal quality control) requires a license under patents owned by [company A]. [company B] has the exclusive right to grant licenses for this purpose in certain fields
1. A license issuance fee of US$10,000.00, which is fully creditable against the first year's royalties;
2. A royalty of 15% of the net selling price for all [technique]-based services;
3. The requirement that all such testing be carried out using Authorized [technique equipment] purchased from a licensed source;
4. Quarterly reporting of all [technique]-based services performed, along with payment of royalties.

Since we have over 115 licensees worldwide, the terms and conditions are not negotiable.[We are Borg...]

[Finally, the accusation:]

...As your website mentions analysis of pathogen load, [your company] may require a license in at least one field, most like that of Quality Assurance/Quality Control Testing, although I would need more information regarding the types of samples being analyzed to determine this.

As a matter of fact, my company does not offer pathogen load testing for QA/QC, or any other service requiring a license as per their defined criteria. I responded once, and unless we offer relevant services in the future, I will not respond to further letters. They can fish elsewhere.