Assignment #1 Option 2

ECS 391 Choice 2: Analysis of chapter 7, court case 2

Aaron Burlew

a.

The Philip Pulver and Catalogs, inc. v. Battelle memorial institute case is being decided by

the U.S. District Court, or the federal trial court, for the eastern district of Washington. b. Philip Pulver is taking Battelle Memorial Institute over the software programs PalmFon

and Mobile Data Manager (MDM). Beginning in 1993, Pulver worked for one of Battelles laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL), for two years. After he was laid off, he worked with PNNL as an independent contractor. Pulver licensed the software program PalmFon, with an expectation that the program could download information from a database to a personal digital assistant. Unfortunately, PalmFon was built specifically for use at PNNL and wasnt able to transfer data the way Pulver wanted. Pulver worked with PNNL on the Mobile Data Manager (MDM), which Pulver expected would be able to transfer data between a database and a personal digital assistant. Pulver funded the project through eight different grants through the Department of Energy and earned copyright protection for his contributions. Like with the PalmFon software, Pulver agreed with PNNL to license the MDM. Pulver would be the only one to be able to license the complete product, as long as he would advertise MDM and pay a fee to use the product (royalty). When PNNLs senior research scientist, Kevin Dorow, presented Pulver a completed version of the software, Pulver was unsatisfied. In order to create a working version of MDM, Dorow said that $25,000 in funding was needed to continue the project. Pulver claimed that a working version existed before, while Dorow claimed that the current version was the only version. Pulver complained to the Department of Energy that the Dorow deceived him into believing MDM was more developed. Pulver then took legal action against PNNL through Battelle.

Assignment #1 Option 2 c.

ECS 391

Aaron Burlew

The district court has to make multiple decisions on issues Battelle brought before the

court. First, the court has to decide whether they can eliminate over 1,000 pages of legal paperwork that Pulver has submitted (strike). Second, Battelle proposed that the court decide the majority of the five issues that make up the case before the trial (summary judgment). The four issues provided are: wrongfully obstructing a current agreement, eliminating all of Pulvers accusations regarding PalmFon, removing all of Pulvers complaints about MDM, and getting rid of copyright claims. d. The first issue the court has to settle is whether the 1,300 + pages of paperwork can be

eliminated (striking). The rule for paperwork elimination was established in previous cases, where courts dont typically eliminate paper at the request of the other party in the case, but should tolerate it as much as possible. Battelle didnt specify what portions should be cut. Since there is some relevant information in the paperwork, the court decided to allow the paperwork to stay and use the pertinent sections of the paperwork. The second thing the court needs to determine is whether they can decide the majority of five issues before the trial. In order to make a decision, the court looks at all of the questions/responses, interviews and evidence. If there is no evidence from the opposing party that is relevant and conflicts with the issue, then the court can make a decision. This helps to simplify and speed up the case. The first of the five issues is wrongfully getting in the way of a current agreement (tortious interference). Pulver complained that Battelle advertised the MDM software to other organizations, which made it impossible for him to make new agreements. The rule for this type of interference is that the Battelle, the accused group in this case, must be deliberately trying to mess with Pulvers agreements with other groups. However, Pulver is only complaining that Battelle is

Assignment #1 Option 2

ECS 391

Aaron Burlew

not extending their agreements. Since a relationship with another group doesnt exist and Pulver has no other evidence to support this point, the court was able to get rid of this claim. The next issue the court has to decide is whether they can eliminate all of Pulvers accusations regarding PalmFon (causes of action 1-5 and 13). The rule for this issue is Washington state law, which says that acceptable license agreements, including warranty warnings are valid and should be followed. Battelle never violated the agreement and Pulver was experienced in the field. Since Pulver had no other evidence to support his claim, the court could make a decision on the matter. The third issue the court has to consider is whether they can remove all of Pulvers complaints about MDM, which is broken into seven subcategories (causes of action 6-11 and 13). The first sub-issue is breaking company (trade) secrets. The rule for this issue is that the group claiming that company secrets were broken must prove that the secret is real and can be protected. Since Pulver only offered the 1,300 + pages of paperwork, there is no evidence to support Pulvers complaint, so this complaint was removed. A next sub-issue is that Battelle was trusted by Pulver and has a responsibility to ensure Pulver is treated financially well (fiduciary duty). The rule for this issue is that the more powerful member, Battelle, must be financially trusted by Pulver for this relationship to exist. Since Pulver doesnt provide any proof of this relationship and both Pulver and Battelle are intelligent and independent, the court decided they could make a ruling on this issue. The third and fourth sub-issues that are in consideration for removal are that Battelle deceived Pulver (misappropriated) and attempted to deceive Pulver (conspired to misappropriate) of the quality of MDM. Washington state law, which says that acceptable license agreements are applicable, serves as the rule for these issues. Since the MDM agreement had a clear disclaimer in

Assignment #1 Option 2

ECS 391

Aaron Burlew

bold and all caps, then Pulvers complaint against these two issues fails and the court can make a decision. The fifth and sixth sub-issues up for removal are, respectively, that Battelle is accused of cheating to get ahead (unfair competition and unfair business practices) and getting in the way of what Pulver planned on (interference with business expectancy). As with the previous two issues, court looked at the written agreement between Pulver and Battelle. Pulvers allegation, that Battelle broke the agreement by working with material that only Pulver had the right to, is the rule of the case. Since the agreement states Battelle was allowed to work on MDM related material, Pulvers argument is pointless and there is no more conflicting evidence, the court can make a decision. The last sub-issue regarding the MDM software is that Battelle didnt complete their part of the deal between the two (breach of contract). The center of this argument is final version of the MDM software. Battelle claimed that the version they gave Pulver was the only one and needed more funds to make corrections. However, Pulver claims he saw a working version before; if this is true, then Battelle would be unfairly getting more money (extortion). Because there is conflicting evidence regarding this issue, the court cant make a decision before the trial (summary judgment is denied). The final issue that the court has to determine is if it can make a ruling on Pulvers copyright claims. Pulver claims that Dorow (the chief scientist at Battelle) plagiarized his work, which is protected by law. In order to prove they stole his work, Pulver must show that he owns the rights and that Dorow copied his work (copyright infringement). However, evidence provided to the courts shows that Dorow not only contributed, but made some of the copyrighted work without any of Pulvers help! From a previous case, it was determined that anyone who contributes to a copyrighted item share the rights. Since Dorow more than contributed, it would be impossible for

Assignment #1 Option 2

ECS 391

Aaron Burlew

anyone to say that Dorow cant use what he created! So, the court can make a decision on this issue before trial. e. For the most part, I believe the court made a fair decision. Pulver had no evidence to support many of his claims because the license agreement for MDM and PalmFon were upheld. From my experience with legal mumbo jumbo, typically people sign any agreement without really considering the implications of the whole thing. Pulver was experienced in the area, but he probably never considered that he wouldnt get a working product! So, its not 100% fair that Pulver didnt get anything that worked, but it is his foolish mistake for not critiquing the contract. The court was just in allowing the dispute of whether a working version of MDM existed to go to court. There wasnt enough information for me to determine if Battelle violated the contract and whether Pulver actually deserved compensation, but at least a jury can fairly make the decision. There were two parts I didnt find fair. The first part is Battelles motion to strike. I understand that the courts dont want to throw out evidence, but the paperwork is ridiculous! They should have ordered Pulver to condense the material. Reading through all of the material without knowing what it is will slow down our courts! The second issue I had was that the court dismissed the misappropriation of trade secrets claim, because they essentially didnt want to look for the trade secrets in the paperwork. On the surface level, this looks like they got back at Pulver for all his paperwork. However, in the end, Pulver can appeal on this issue. I believe simply not looking through paperwork is an abuse of discretion and they will have to look into the issue later, further slowing down our court procedure.