tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2959351063424658743.post4850594210238467097..comments2011-10-12T11:02:38.453+01:00Jas Purewalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03902257198334420267noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2959351063424658743.post-69941690618424388642011-10-12T11:02:38.453+01:002011-10-12T11:02:38.453+01:00If they would have been applied for a patent this might would have been not the case. Patent application protects one to copy their invention.Patent prior art searchhttp://www.ttconsultants.co.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2959351063424658743.post-88311793199260972172010-04-11T16:10:50.907+01:002010-04-11T16:10:50.907+01:00Having looked carefully though this case, a few points appear to have been overlooked and some elements don&#39;t quite add up.<br /> <br />Looking through the judgement and the reams of documentary evidence, Mr Burrows appears to have been the victim of some poor legal representation, which was simply followed through by the judge. <br /><br />Mr Burrows&#39; barrister appears to come under fire from the outset. Justice Norris takes issue with the way the claim has been presented, and the barrister seems to be putting forward an entirely different argument. Annoying the judge is not going to help win your claim. If the core argument has been muddied, there is little hope of success with any other points.<br /><br />A key point has been made in regards to Mr Burrows&#39; employers being unaware that the concept was his. It is unclear how this assumption could be made, as there are dozens of quite detailed design documents, clearly marked with the copyright notice with his name and the date. How did they miss them? The copyright notice should provided enough protection. If it didn&#39;t, then what is the point of the copyright notice? <br /><br />It is difficult to believe that Mr Burrows, having gone to the trouble of putting copyright notices on all of his work, suddenly decided to present documentation without them. <br /><br />Unfortunately for Mr Burrows, Justice Norris appears to have in explicably ignored his substantive documentary evidence; instead prefering to cite in favour of a document referenced by the defendant. These &#39;rough notes&#39; do not appear to exist. <br /><br />Also odd is that it is assumed, that Mr Burrows would prefer to present &#39;rough notes&#39; over a well laid out, fully fledged design. All the evidence shows detailed design documentation, most several pages long, predating his employment.<br /><br />Another oddity in this case is that a director of a company is not considered to be a &#39;guiding mind&#39;. How could Mr Smith be regarded as anything else? Within the evidence there are emails from Mr Smith demanding a not insubstantial $380k for development costs.(This could have been a factor in the game not selling.) Smith clearly is the &#39;guiding mind&#39; if is able to sign off on a prospective deal.<br /><br />It appears that Mr Burrows has been particularly unlucky in his claim, and the case highlights the risks of litigation for all concerned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com