joshtimonen talks

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

We don't know what Josh agreed to. All we know is what the plaintiff's lawsuit alleges he agreed to.

Bella's version may be more accurate:

How did Dawkins meet Timonen?

They were having lunch together at a diner and Josh faked an orgasm, and the guy at the next table said "I'll have what he's having..."

I Like Bella's version. Still, as you point out, we don't know what JT agreed to-- because he was an independent contractor without a contract. Which is a stupid thing to be, unless you think it allows you free rein to determine your own compensation without discussing it with the people you're doing work for.

An independent contractor can always determine his own income from his own corporation. If the company makes $100,000, and the owner wants to pay himself $90,000 in salaries and dividends, then that's his prerogative, normally. The internal workings of company X is nobody's business but the shareholder's of company X, generally speaking.

The Complaint filed by RDF alleges, specifically, that Timonen is 100% owner of UBP, Inc. So, normally, it would be none of RDF's business what the internal workings of independent contractor UBP, Inc., including but not limited to the salaries paid by it. It would ONLY be RDF's business if UBP made some sort of binding commitment in that regard - hence the oral contract. RDF has to prove that Timonen agreed not to take a salary from UBP, or that Timonen agreed to run UBP for the benefit of RDF and that the salaries and expenses incurred were unreasonable or improper.

[Trolldor]

Actually, the RDF already has a strong case - the way the store was marketed and the goods that it sold.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, the RDF already has a strong case - the way the store was marketed and the goods that it sold.

That's the strongest part of the case, I agree.

It's all Dawkins stuff, and if I were on the jury I would want to know why in the world we should believe that Dawkins would just give it away to Timonen to sell, through the RDF website.

What Timonen can say in response, however, is - Dawkins didn't just give it away. He can say that it WAS being run for the benefit of RDF, only port of the operating costs involved in starting up and running the Store included the salaries paid to him, Norton and Norton's son Graham (amounting to $268,000 of the $375,000 figure in the complaint (the rest being "business expenses").

Timonen can say, "look - we paid over $30,000 to RDF, and that's what was left over after operating expenses, costs of goods sold, startup costs, salaries, etc. - I would never have done all that for no salary - and Richard was too busy to deal with and wanted to keep the foundation clear of all the "regulatory issues" that kept the foundation from being able to run the store itself. So, while I was running the store for the benefit of RDF, I wasn't doing so without compensation, and Richard knew that UBP was my company, and Richard knows how companies work - he knew I was going to pay myself a salary from proceeds of sales."

Timonen can also say, "look -I was taking a big risk. I was already working full time for Dawkins personally and the Foundation, and that continued. Basically, I was working another full time job to build the Store and if it didn't succeed, I wouldn't be able to pay myself any salary and I would have wasted all my time. As it was, I made it successful, took a reasonable salary and paid Norton and Graham a reasonable salary, and paid business expenses, and there was still some left over to pay over to RDF. As we moved forward, we could expect that piece - the part going over to RDF - to grow as sales grew. And, now that RDF was taking it back over since it solved its regulatory problems, RDF got a turnkey operation dropped in its lap that I built."

I'm thinking something of that ilk is going to come from Timonen when we finally hear his side.

[Coito ergo sum]

Roughly 80,000 dollars a year hardly seems like nothing. I wish I made that much.

You aren't a software engineer, are you?

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

Maybe software engineers see things differently.

Software engineers who make $80,000 a year have, at bare minimum, a BSc or a BMath from a recognised University. More than likely they have their masters and a decade of experience behind them with a long list of accomplishments on their resume.

Also, and this is just a minor point, JOSH IS NOT A SOFTWARE ENGINEEER! He doesn't even claim to be a web designer! I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

I hear you. I just wanted to point out that, whatever a software engineer, or website developer, or whatever, feels he or she ought to make, based on market value for their work, etc., etc., is irrelevant if that person does not negotiate for that pay scale and have it put down in writing.

Except when that website designer owns his own website design company and pays himself out of the revenues of the company that he owns. Then he can do what he likes.

I'd also like to point out that, while JT is claiming copyright of the "A" logo for atheists because he designed it (and really, what an amazing design it was-- fontmakers everywhere were drooling, I'm sure), if that work was done for hire, he does not have any rights to his design--

If he was an independent contractor, it's his, unless otherwise agreed in writing. If he was an employee, it's the employer's copyright, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the same way that Julie Taymour has no rights to the design work she did for "Lion King"-- all that work is now the property of Disney.

She had a written contract.

If you tell me you'll give me $10 to take your picture, hand be $10 and I take your picture. I own the copyright on that picture, unless we otherwise agree to transfer it. If I was your employee, however, you would own it.

I'd also like to point out, as an aside, that JT seems like a massive tool, regardless of how foolish RD was to put such faith in him, with such little paperwork.

Agreed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it's fascinating.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it's fascinating.

Sorry, but my domicile protective coating is transitioning from a liquid state to a solid state and the utmost supervision is required to insure consistent results.

[Twoflower]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it'sfascinating boring.

fixed.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it'sfascinating boring.

fixed.

So, you make it a habit of clicking on threads you find boring?

[Trolldor]

I do.

[Thinking Aloud]

There's nothing like a good bit of speculation to fire the brain cells.

[Twoflower]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it'sfascinating boring.

fixed.

So, you make it a habit of clicking on threads you find boring?

Just making sure there isn't any more drama going on. It's a mod thing. Saw an easy fix and jumped on it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd have thought we would have exhausted this topic by now.

But it'sfascinating boring.

fixed.

So, you make it a habit of clicking on threads you find boring?

Just making sure there isn't any more drama going on. It's a mod thing. Saw an easy fix and jumped on it.

A mod thing:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]