Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2012 - Hacking Lawsuits

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FILED: 05/01/12

This lawsuit includes many different legal bases for recovery but with respect to “hacking” the claims relate to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  The Defendant is alleged to have repetitively accessed the Plaintiff’s computer systems to obtain information in order to provide service for the Plaintiff’s products and services.  This type of aggressive business practice, if true, is becoming more prevalent.  While businesses in the past have allowed this type of business to thrive, today we see a much more aggressive effort to protect intellectual property and enforce the laws. 

The Plaintiff is a software manufacturer and Lynx is alleged to have illegally accessed its computers, obtained and created derivative works of its software, and used those works in unlawful ways to offer low-cost support and maintenance for MRI Software.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of confidential business information and/or trade secrets, trespassing, breach of agreement, intentional or negligent interference with existing and prospective economic advantage, trademark infringement, commercial disparagement, false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff MRI Software requests that Defendant Lynx Systems be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and from engaging in any acts of unfair competition, unfair practices, trespassing, or computer fraud against Plaintiff MRI.  Plaintiff requests that Defendant Lynx be ordered to return MRI’s property including MRI Software and promotional materials and that MRI receive treble, punitive, exemplary, and statutory damages in addition to the recovery of costs for this action, reasonable counsel fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. CyberTrialLawyer.com Cross Reference Number 1569.


socalin ternetlawyer said...

This is a very informative blog. thanks for sharing the information. internet lawyer

elise bret said...

Nice blog the information is helpful. Our ability to monetize patents with or without litigation ensures that our clients receive the full value of their intellectual property attorneys assets.