National cash Register Company - Essay Example

?Briefing a Case Example Case Number: NCR CORP. V. KORALA ASSOCIATES, LTD (CASE 3 FACTS: National cash Register Company (NCR)was founded by John H Patterson in the year 1884. Currently, NCR is regarded as a global supplier of automated teller machines (ATMs), integrated hardware along with software systems, related maintenance and support services. It can be viewed that over 300000 NCR ATMs are installed throughout the globe. In order to upgrade ATM’s security, NCR created a software solution to implement in all of its ATM machines. At the same time, Korala Associates Ltd. (KAL) argued to have created a comparable security up-gradation for NCR’s ATMs. For developing such software, KAL has entered into agreement with NCR in the year 1998 (the “1998 Agreement”). Thus, in order to facilitate such process, NCR had financed KAL a property ATM which involved copyright software known as APTRA XFS (Gehrke & Associates, S.C., “United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit”). ISSUE: NCR assumed that KAL had obtained access to make unauthorized use of the copyrighted software and claimed that KAL had involved in unlawful copying of APTRRA XFS software. NCR further claimed that KAL has developed its version of security upgradation only by engaging in this unauthorized activity. NCR brought a suit claiming copyright infringement against KAL (Gehrke & Associates, S.C., “United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit”). Law: The court stated that the dispute amid the parties not only rely upon the scope of the arbitration clause, but also remains much focus upon determining whether claims would be ruled under the arbitration clause of the contract. ANALYSIS: The court approved the dismissal of case due to the arbitration clause. NCR plead against the decision of the court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In this regard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that NCR’s copyright infringement claim was not dependent on reference to or understanding of the license agreement and therefore such claim is not arbitral under an arbitration clause (Gehrke & Associates, S.C., “United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit”). CONCLUSION: NCR does not want its claim to be decided by arbitration because it wanted to seek remedy against the intentional act of breaching its licensing agreement (the 1998 agreement) by KAL and also because infringement of NCR’s copyright in APTRA XFS software which would be dispositive to this claim. It can be affirmed that NCR could have a claim that KAL engaged in unfair competition because KAL indulged in conducting unethical business practices through misusing misused trade secrets and other valuable property information (Gehrke & Associates, S.C., “United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit”). AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC .V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (CASE 28.1) FACTS: The National Football league (NFL) includes thirty two independently owned qualified football teams. Every team possess name, logo and colors along with own associated intellectual property. In 1963, the teams created National Football League Properties (NFLP) to build up license and promote their trademarked objects including caps and jersey. NFLP has approved licenses to number of traders allowing them to produce and sell clothes embedding team insignias. American Needle, Inc was one of the licensees. In the year 2000, NFLP approved Reebok International Ltd an absolute ten year license to produce and trade trademarked headwear for entire thirty two teams. Thereafter, it refused to refurbish license of American Needle (Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L., “Supreme Court of the United States”). ISSUE: American Needle filed a suit in a federal district court claiming that the contract involving the NFL, the NFLP, its teams and Reebok infringed Sections 1 and 2 articulated in Sherman Act. Law: In response, the defendants affirmed that they were unable of work against within the section 1 “because they are single economic enterprise” as far as the promotion of trademarked merchandise was concerned. The district court approved summary judgment in support of the defendants. ANALYSIS: American Needle appealed against the court’s verdict to The US Court of Appeals. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of trial court. American Needle further appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded that the case will further proceed based on this opinion. The United States Supreme Court recognized that the agreement among the NFL teams to permit their intellectual property absolutely through the NFLP to Reebok comprised combined activity subjected to Section 1 analysis (Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L, “Supreme Court of the United States”). CONCLUSION: The statement “the agreement is likely to survive the Rule of Reason” given by the Court represents that the NFL, the NFLP, its teams and Reebok have entered into the agreement in order to illegally restrict the competition. It can be affirmed that Court’s ruling to a great extent means that the NFL teams’ activities with respect to the marketing of their intellectual property through the NFLP were illegal. This is because despite NFL teams act as a joint venture and cooperates for various aspects of the league, a sort of competition exists amid them with respect to licensing and merchandising activities (Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L., “Supreme Court of the United States”). Works Cited “Supreme Court of the United States”. American Needle, Inc. V. National Football League Et Al. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L., 2013.Web. 29 Sep. 2013. . “United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.” Recommended For Full-Text Publication. Gehrke & Associates, S.C., 2012. Web. 29 Sep. 2013. . Read More