Unauthorized Source Code Copying
Conversion Claim Not Cognizable in PA
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Unauthorized Source Code Copying
Conversion Claim Not Cognizable in PA
A conversion claim against a software licensee based on allegations of unauthorized copying of the licensed source code is not cognizable because neither copyrights nor the software at issue are subject to conversion under Pennsylvania law. Apparel Business Systems, LLC v. Tom James Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26313 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2008). The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the conversion and copyright claims, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing because it failed to establish that it owns the software copyrights at issue or make a cognizable conversion claim under state law. The court found that copyrights are not the kind of intangible rights that customarily merge in a particular document because the rights associated with copyright ownership are not embodied in the physical paper of the copyright registration, but arise as soon as the work is fixed in a tangible medium. The court also held that software is not the type of property subject to a conversion claim, because it was doubtful that the copied code amounted to chattel or deprived the plaintiff of the use of its software, as it was not the case that 'the defendants carried off a disk containing the plaintiff's program and refused to give it back.'
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.