Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
e-Commerce Docket Sheet
Source Code Lacked
'Independent Economic Value'
For Trade Secret Protection
A software company claiming trade-secret misappropriation of segments of computer source code failed to meet its burden of showing that the disputed import functions, routines and procedures had 'independent economic value,' because it failed to establish that the segments, 'in and of themselves would provide a competitive advantage to a competitor.' Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp., 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Aug. 23, 2007). The appeals court upheld the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's trade-secret misappropriation claim, affirming the trial court's conclusion that there was 'no credible evidence' that the disputed code segments satisfied the independent economic value test. Among other things, the trial court concluded that the disputed functions and procedures 'are common to virtually every type of software program that can be conceived of,' and that such functions can be obtained from the Internet.
Credit-Watching Cost After Data Breach
Not A Cognizable Injury in Fact
In a negligence and breach-of-contract action alleging unauthorized access to personal information as the result of a data-security breach, the cost of credit monitoring is not a cognizable injury in fact under Indiana law. Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20068 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007). The appeals court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the putative class action against a financial-services provider, ruling that in the absence of any specific evidence of identity theft resulting from the security breach, the plaintiffs suffered merely the anticipation of future injury. The court followed the general rule that an alleged increase of future injury is not a cognizable injury that can form the basis of a successful negligence claim. The court also commented that Indiana's data-notification law, which outlines narrow disclosure duties and provides only for state enforcement actions, strongly suggests that Indiana law would not recognize the costs of credit monitoring as compensable damages.
Similar Decision
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.