COMPAQ NAMED IN $10-BILLION COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/FRAUD LAWSUIT
HOUSTON, June 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The Houston law firm of Vaden, Eickenroht & Thompson announces that it
is representing Ergonome Incorporated, a New York publishing company, in a $10.167-billion lawsuit against
Compaq Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ). Ergonome seeks damages from Compaq for the willful
infringement of Ergonome's copyrights, for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit, for Fraud, for
Misappropriation and for Unfair Competition.
Ergonome is the publisher of a book entitled "Preventing Computer Injury: The HAND Book," based on a
patented method of ergonomically safer keyboard technique invented by the concert pianist, Stephanie Brown.
In its complaint before the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ergonome alleges that
Compaq copied copyright-protected portions of The HAND Book without Ergonome's permission for inclusion in
the 1994 edition of Compaq's "Safety & Comfort Guide". The complaint estimates that Compaq has distributed
at least 21,000,000 copies of the allegedly infringing booklet with computers that it has sold.
Ergonome's complaint alleges that in early 1994, Compaq requested that Ergonome provide it with a licensing
proposal that would permit Compaq to supply a copy of The HAND Book with every Compaq computer sold, but
that instead of finalizing the licensing arrangement, Compaq secretly created, and in August 1994 published,
the allegedly infringing booklet.
Ergonome's complaint says that Compaq's infringement of its copyrights has damaged Ergonome in an amount
not less than the price at which Ergonome offered to sell The HAND Book to Compaq, $7.95 per copy, multiplied
by the estimated minimum of 21,000,000 allegedly infringing copies, or $166,950,000. Ergonome's complaint
further claims that Compaq derived an additional $4-billion benefit from publication of the allegedly infringing
booklet through avoidance of potential liability for that amount in keyboard-injury related it was written so
overbroadly and viciously that it violated not just one, but four separate constitutional principles."
SOURCE Culinary Workers 226 |
