Random thoughts from some guy on the internet who has read most of
the last 13 pages..
Mike Wallace acknowledges that he was employed by GSM and his designs while employed by GSM are the intellectual property of GSM (this is really the be-all-end-all here.. right or wrong, by signing an employment agreement with GSM, Wallace has given up any personal stake in this design, or any other of "his" designs while employed by GSM). Mike Wallace acknowledges that Jimislash reached out to him, interested in the design, offering to buy it. Wallace acknowledges that he informed Jimislash that the knife design was GSM IP and advised him that any deal must go through GSM. Jimislash and GSM arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement which gives agency over the design to Jimislash. Design tweaks are made with input from Jimislash.
Regardless of Wallace’s sour grapes and the personal opinions of random folks on this forum.. right, wrong, or indifferent.. the sequence of events listed above, which appear to be generally agreed upon by Wallace and GSM, all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works. When you’re employed by a company like GSM you give up any agency over your designs. My advice to Wallace (not that I expect he'll take it) would be to move on.. for sure, to stop talking about this nonsense on the internet.. and maybe re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM. At a certain point, sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action..
It's nice to see a GSM rep participating in the fray, I understand it’s not something that has been consistent around here.. I imagine the warm response he has received here will endear him to stick around..
Here's a brief analysis of the post above.
The second paragraph only describes a "sequence of events". The YouTube events, however, were not mentioned.
The third paragraph, which is the most complex, is the most important one. Let's see its contents.
(1) It states that "the sequence of events listed above... all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works."
(2) It gives to Mr. Wallace an advice: "move on", "stop talking about this nonsense on the internet".
(3) It gives to Mr. Wallace an additional advice: to "re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM".
(4) It warns Mr. Wallace that "sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action".
But what about the first paragraph? In a certain way, it's the most revealing piece of the text. It describes the author as just "some guy" and the post itself as just "random thoughts". However, the post shows quite the opposite: a well crafted text containing a well crafted logical sequence written by a clever author. Let's resume it again:
(a) [This is the] "sequence of events";
(b) "That’s just how business works";
(c) "Stop talking about this nonsense on the internet";
(d) [You are] "sharing so much information about the company";
(e) [You are] "flirting with legal action".
The fourth and last paragraph works as an anti-climax that pleases and relaxes the reader. It praises the presence of the GSM representative and even make use of a bit of irony talking about the "warm response" by the forum users.
I have very little to add to my own analysis. I personally don't like the idea to ask someone to stop talking about a subject on the internet when he was already censored
in a social media channel. I also think that if that's "just how business works", there would be no reason to censor someone. Everything could be explained and made clear in the open — and that could be even educative to the audience.
Last but not least, I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace
. Therefore, why would him be "flirting with legal action"? What was that, just a friendly warning, a bit scary perhaps? But based on what?
And what for? No wonder that, at a first sight, it could have seemed to me a veiled menace. It's because, at least for me, the whole thing does not make any sense.
Although I have had to quote the post in order to analyze it, this is not a “reply” and I don’t expect a reply. I understand that many people here have different ways of judge this kind of issues and I have no problem with that; and I certainly would not bother to point out every fallacy I read in this thread. But when I came across what could be
considered an attempt of censoring and intimidation, I felt compelled to speak. In a first moment, I thought that the whole thing was so transparent to anyone that I wouldn't even had to explain myself; but I was obviously wrong about that.