Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

In my most recent posting, I indicated that I would not continue responding to this thread, but given the tough comments and false accusations from Howard J. Rogers, I still feel it appropriate to clear my name as a thief and further investigate the claims made by Mr. Rogers. I continued researching why such a strong push was made by Mr. Rogers to have me remove the document entitled "9i New Features" and found several interesting postings in reference it. While I still fully intend to honor the request of Mr. Rogers in not posting this document, I still find his libeling me a thief and assuming my intentions as erroneous and unprofessional.

Although Howard J. Rogers "makes no apologies" for these accusation of theft, I am hopeful that the RIGHTFUL OWNER of this disputed material (Oracle Corporation) will apologize to me.

Awhile back, Howard J. Rogers notes that Oracle Corporation claimed ownership and insisted that Howard J. Rogers remove the web site. www.hjrdba.com.

The following is a post from Mr. Rogers:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl961786058d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe= UTF-8&safe=off&selm=ab9b06%24ekv%241%40lust.ihug.co.nz

Howard J. Rogers admits "Given whatever concerns there were, however, the mechanism used to achieve resolution was simply to enforce the Proprietary Information Agreement I'd signed which said (on close inspection) that anything I write related to Oracle matters whilst employed by Oracle belongs to Oracle. By asserting ownership, Oracle Corp was able to insist on take-down."

Howard J. Rogers did NOT remove the web site content, only moved it to another location where I was unfortunate enough to locate it. Howard J. Rogers talks about the liability of Oracle Corporation for material he has created:

Howard Rogers states: "I was specifically told that no disclaimer under the sun would free Oracle from liability if it was known that the poster was an employee of said corporation. By the VP of IP no less."

Later in the same thread, we see Howard's intent to continue publishing against the wishes of Oracle Corporation, and to create a "sixth" site called Lydian Third to deceive Oracle Corporation.

Howard J. Rogers writes "Depressed though I am at recent events, such comments have persuaded me that it is worthwhile to keep going . . . The site that was taken down was my fifth. "Lydian Third" is a musical term. My trusty OED tells me that it is "the mode represented by the natural diatonic scale F-F." What that has to do with Oracle, I have no idea... except that it was a Greek mode or some such, and the Oracle was in Greece."

In short, Howard J. Rogers WAS NEVER the rightful owner of this material, and unlawfully kept his copyright mark on material owned by Oracle Corporation.

Hopefully these links prove that Howard J. Rogers knew that he was not the rightful copyright holder of this material when he accused me of theft.

Regards,
-- jeff

Jeffrey M. Hunter
Sr. Database Administrator
jhunter_at_idevelopment.info
www.idevelopment.info

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr20002_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:eNHka.10038$1s1.167257_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e93372e_3_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr20002_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:0Ayka.9733$1s1.163794_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > Just so you know, and in total contrast to, er, a certain other poster
> > here,
> > > the owner of the site in question replied to me within 2 hours of my
> > > contacting him (via the 'feedback' or 'contact me' link on his site,
not
> > > private email) to apologise, and inform me that he has removed the
> > relevant
> > > material. We part on good terms, I think, and the matter is closed and
> > dealt
> > > with.
> > >
> > > If only it could ever be thus.
> > >
> > Howard, PMFJI.
> >
> > Good. Well said. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Hunter has acted
honourably
> > throughout.
>
> I'll have to disagree with you there. There was no justification for the
> stream of abuse I received, here as well as in my email, when he was
> originally asked simply to remove the offending material. Not exactly
> honourable, at least.
>
> The second incident (involving someone completely new) was resolved
entirely
> as I had hoped Mr. Hunter's abuse of copyright would have been, but
wasn't.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
Received on Tue Apr 22 2003 - 19:36:29 CEST