Happy Kat; Litigation Every Minute Therapy?

Happy Kat

is a happy kat. Yesterday his e-mail round down listing notched upward its 500th member. Thank yous for joining us, Simone, you're really welcome! Merpel says, this is i occasion when I'm non going to fence ... but the other 499 are welcome too.

On a somewhat less happy note, several of our e-mail round down readers conduct maintain complained of the listing beingness hijacked from fourth dimension to fourth dimension yesteryear spammers. In theory this should non survive able to happen. Google operates a moderated scheme for its Groups, nether which every e-mail round down has to survive approved yesteryear the IPKat earlier it's distributed to his round down list. Some 10 to 12 such spam circulars are notified to him daily. It is the IPKat's policy never to allow the distribution of tertiary political party circulars, though from fourth dimension to fourth dimension the IPKat volition post data every bit a weblog inwards its ain correct if it has been sent to him yesteryear a friend together with appears to conduct maintain approximately genuine connectedness to intellectual property.

Unfortunately approximately spam all the same gets through together with it's doubly annoying to the IPKat. Apart from the fact that he has to conduct maintain the fourth dimension together with attempt to verify that it is spam together with and hence delete it - simply every bit everyone else does - he also has to respond several emails a calendar week from irate members of the circulation list. Some of yous conduct maintain wondered if the IPKat gets paid for circulating this stuff. The respond is emphatically no.

So delight survive patient if yous instruct spam via the IPKat's list: we're doing our best to fighting it together with really much promise that i 24-hour interval it volition survive exclusively eliminated.


Litigation every bit therapy?

This floated into the IPKat's consciousness via the LexisNexis Butterworths service: Vitof Ltd v Altoft [2006] EWHC 1678 (Ch), a determination of Richard Arnold QC, sitting every bit a deputy justice of the High Court, final Tuesday, xi July.

A individual referred to inwards the depository fiscal establishment notation every bit C, together amongst the accused Altoft, entered into a partnership for the role of making a novel labelling machine. For this role they incorporated a company, Vitof. On the company's incorporation, C together with Altoft became its directors; Altoft was also the fellowship secretary. C, Vitof together with Altoft entered into a shareholders' understanding yesteryear which they agreed that C together with Altoft would finance the fellowship through loans repayable i time Vitof became profitable.

Vitof after developed a labelling machine, the PDFM. Circuit boards for the PDFM were made inwards the UK yesteryear approximately other company, UKE. C together with Altoft gradually barbarous out together with Altoft eventually resigned his directorship. Vitof together with hence sued Altoft, alleging that (i) the components of the PDFM together with all the IP rights inwards them belonged to it since they had been created yesteryear C together with Altoft inwards their capacities every bit the company's directors together with employees; (ii) the PDFM's rootage code was confidential together with (iii) Vitof owned copyright together with pattern rights inwards the designs depicted inwards pattern documents that it had sent to UKE inwards March 2003. Altoft served a defense forcefulness together with a counterclaim inwards honour of the valuation of his shareholding, seeking repayment of his loans. Vitof pressed for summary judgment on its claims together with sought to nail out chunks of the counterclaim. Altoft also applied for contrary summary judgment on Vitof's claims together with on his counterclaims.

Richard Arnold QC ruled that, on the evidence, Vitof was entitled to summary judgment on its claim that Altoft held the copyright inwards the latest version of the PDFM's rootage code on trust for Vitof; he also gave summary judgment on the claim inwards relation to the confidentiality of that rootage code. Since Altoft had a existent conduct chances of establishing that legal or equitable ownership of the pattern correct inwards the designs belonged to UKE rather than to Vitof, a announcement would survive made to the result not that Vitof did own the pattern right, but that Altoft did not. Altoft's counterclaim inwards honour of the alleged undervaluing of his shareholding would survive struck out, but he was entitled to summary judgment on his claim for repayment of the coin he lent Vitof.

finds it lamentable that these disputes instruct to court. What is hence frequently at stake is non the legal issues but the personal wound felt yesteryear one-time line of piece of job organisation associates who conduct maintain fallen out, who nurse grievances against i approximately other together with for whom litigation is frequently an expensive bird of anger therapy. The to a greater extent than such cases are settled yesteryear skilful representative administration or yesteryear summary judgment, rather than beingness allowed to grind on to trial, the better. Merpel adds, there's much to survive said for edifice approximately assort of comfortable dispute resolution clause into the partnership organisation when it's drawn up, since hence many partnerships cease inwards tears.