|
[ Go to July 1997 Table of Contents ]
Letters
I read with despair Bob Eustace's column about his legal troubles (Dialog Box, April). What happened to him is deplorable, and I found myself saying, "How could this have happened in America in 1997?" He was taken advantage of in every sense of the word, while the other guy is probably laughing all the way to the bank. I fully agree with his assessment that "every software developer in the country will be at risk" if this trend continues. Jonathan L. Hopwood via the Internet Quite frankly, if I spent four years and a million bucks to get the drubbing Mr. Eustace got, I'd be more upset with my legal team than with the judge and jury. Why didn't Eustace's lawyers get the judge taken off the case for prejudicial conduct or insist on a jury of computer-literate people as a jury of his peers? I agree with the notion that functional similarity has nothing to do with intellectual property or trade secrets. If look and feel, or functionality, is a valid test of intellectual property, why doesn't Ford sue GM (or vice versa) over the arrangement of the primary driving controls in an automobile? After all, the placement of the steering wheel, turn signal lever and brake pedal have a lot to do with the look and feel of the driving experience. Harwood Loomis via the Internet Mr. Eustace suggests that "software experts should decide whether [the disputed code is] truly [a] trade secret." In many cases, such a procedure is available. Arbitration allows for speedy resolution of disputes before a panel of impartial experts. Companies seeking to avoid Mr. Eustace's fate ought to consult their legal counsel about including arbitration clauses in their contracts. Patrick J. Borchers via the Internet
|