Re: What happened in ProCD on Remand?

On 2/18/97, Bob Kreiss <kreiss[_at_]odo.law.udayton.edu> wrote:
>
> In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the Seventh Circuit found that the
> shrinkwrap license was valid and not preempted by copyright. It
> remanded and directed judgment be entered for ProCD.
>
> I presume this is only judgment on the breach of license
> agreement claim as the copyright claims were found wanting.
>
> Does anyone know what remedies ProCD obtained? Injunctive
> relief (i.e., don't copy our data anymore; or return our disks)?
> Contract remedies of some kind? Monetary damages? Was ProCD able
> to get profits on its lost sales? Or Zeidenberg's profits? How does
> one go about measuring damages for breach of a promise not to make
> commercial use of a product?
>

The parties settled the case while we were in the process of filing a cert petition. The settlement was mutually advantageous to both sides; I will have to ask Matt whether it was confidential.

Speaking as a personal matter, and not as a lawyer involved in the case, I wanted Matt to argue on remand that he was entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing defendant on ProCD's IMHO frivolous copyright claim, regardless of the resolution of the contract claim.

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu

For information on the Intellectual Property program at UT, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/intelprop/ Received on Mon Feb 24 1997 - 15:34:20 GMT