Need to define intellectual property Precedent Case Star Foods v Stockman Ruling that Intellectual property is autonomous unit

She only revealed part of the procedure State University v Schell 1) Because the projected losses were based on hypothetical figures based on the price of a notoriously volatile metal, the university was not entitled to any compensation in this area. 2)Because Schell had used the university facilities, time, and financial resources to develop the procedure, he was in violation of his agreement. The judge awarded the university 10,000 as a nominal settlement. Southern Technology v Gaspard ST claiming that although the software was not developed on company time, she used company purchased equipment to develop the software. The court ruled that Southern Technology was indeed entitled to nominal compensation in proportion to their contribution to the software package. In this case, the court ruled that figure at 5000. Gaspard was not under a information agreement Software International v techsol " The line between protected intellectual property and simple expertise is fuzzy. Knowledge gained on the job is not intellectual property and it not protected by law. Intellectual property refers to specific, quantifiable information that supports and results in an identifiable goal." IN THIS CASE, the judge felt that Ingram had merely used onthe-job expertise, not confidential information, to develop software for Techsol. Statement of Facts: Ken Aulds and Bobby Michener were engineers in Techcom's research and development division . While employed at Techcom they signed an agreement stating that any marketable products developed as part of their normal research duties at the company were to become company property. They also agreed not to divulge any " company secrets" during or following their employment. Aulds and Michner developed a procedure for retrieving oil from previously unreachable oil sands by pumping a mixture of hydrochloric acid and steam through a string of drill pipe. This procedure was very complex and only worked under very defined conditions. Techcom recognized this procedure as potentially valuable however, because a practical delivery methods did not exist, they did not patent the procedure, believing that any profitable use was years away. Energy Resources, Inc hired the two engineers away from Techcom six months after their invention. One year after their employment, oil prices reached a 30-year high of $45 per barrel and remained near that price for three years. At the time, Energy Resources patented the procedure and contracted with a Scottish company to develop a

delivery medium. The combination worked, and Energy Resources became a world leader in directional drilling and oil retrieval. Techcom is seeking some of the proceeds from the procedure, claiming that the procedure was developed while Aulds and Michener were their employees