Difference between revisions of "Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc."
m (cat) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc.'', 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Fifth Circuit]] affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a [[copyright]] case. The trial court had held that any copying by Compaq was was de minimis and constituted fair use according to 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel also barred Ergonome's claim. | + | In '''''Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc.''''', 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Fifth Circuit]] affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a [[copyright]] case. The trial court had held that any copying by Compaq was was de minimis and constituted fair use according to 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel also barred Ergonome's claim. |
The [[Fifth Circuit]] also affirmed an award to Compaq of attorneys' fees of $2.7 million partly as a sanction for unjustified litigation tactics, and held that an individual was liable as the alter ego of Ergonome as a sanction for repeated discovery violations throughout the litigation process. | The [[Fifth Circuit]] also affirmed an award to Compaq of attorneys' fees of $2.7 million partly as a sanction for unjustified litigation tactics, and held that an individual was liable as the alter ego of Ergonome as a sanction for repeated discovery violations throughout the litigation process. | ||
Revision as of 23:17, April 30, 2008
In Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a copyright case. The trial court had held that any copying by Compaq was was de minimis and constituted fair use according to 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel also barred Ergonome's claim.
The Fifth Circuit also affirmed an award to Compaq of attorneys' fees of $2.7 million partly as a sanction for unjustified litigation tactics, and held that an individual was liable as the alter ego of Ergonome as a sanction for repeated discovery violations throughout the litigation process.
Chief Judge Edith Jones wrote the opinion for the Fifth Circuit.