These are two very different animals, if one might use a metaphore. Hacking an email account and stealing private corporate information is very different from a business relatonship that went sour. This is not a co-equal arrangement. I have no idea what the role of the accused was in AMX but I assume is was the top inside sales rep for the NY-metopolitan area. He was therefore an AMX employee and his alleged illegal activities benefitied him and AMX.

The Cimax-AMX law suit is a classic case of business partners falling out. Cimax's subsiderary sued AMX and AMX counter sued. “'This is a classic tale where innovative and talented entrepreneurs shared intellectual processes, systems and software with a corporate giant and the giant tries to steal the business,'said George Fallica of Cimax/VIG.......It seems as if AMX is accusing Cimax of doing exactly what AMX has done to B&M/Cimax. Cimax affiliates and business partners are confident that sheer size will not affect the outcome of this lawsuit and that justice will prevail." [Link: news.ecoustics.com]

I believe Julie wrote about this dispute in CE Pro as well. What ever the facts of the case how does a falling out between business partners, with the resulting arguments and claims, counter arguments and counter-claims have to do with an employee of AMX being accused of corporate espianage? Perhaps Cimax did try to establish a business relationship with Crestron once the relationship with AMX fell through. Perhaps there was more to it. But this sort of dispute is the nuts and bolts of business law. In essence it is a dispute about contracts. Mr Goldenberg is innocent till proven guilty but if the allegations are proved true how do you equate corporate espianage with a failed business venture where AMX is accused of being stealing business secrets and AMX accuses the other side of not filling its contactual obligations. One sounds like a crime and the other a divorce yet you link them as the same.

Alan