Page:Dynamic Solutions v. Planning & Control.pdf/16

 Censor’s simulations and using the 1975 software which plaintiff concedes belongs to Censor. It did not pay Censor for the use of those programs and games (Tr. 170–71), and now appears to concede that because the games themselves belong to Censor, DSI cannot run even the Alpha Micro software for anyone other than Censor without violating the 1975 contract. (Tr. 377). Questioned about his company’s use of Censor’s materials, Melhado answered that the 1975 contract “never occurred to me.” (Tr. 171). Plaintiff’s contention that Censor was aware of these overseas adventures (Tr. 373–74) is not supported in the pages of Censor’s deposition cited by plaintiff. Censor did know that DSI billed one client directly for the use of the Alpha Micro software in the United States, and he testified that he “was not clear or was certainly not made aware directly for time-sharing charges.” (Dep. 395–96). Presumably Censor’s comment regarding time-sharing charges applies to DSI’s overseas, pre-1981 seminars, since at that time only the time-sharing programs existed.

For several reasons, I do not believe plaintiff’s claims should be barred because of these pre-1981 overseas seminars. First, I do not find the seminars sufficiently related to the subject matter of this action. The rights directly at issue in this action are the copyrights in the Alpha Micro programs. Whether or not DSI was entitled to run training seminars overseas prior to 1981 has no impact on this issue. It cannot be said, therefore, that “prosecution of [DSI’s] rights” in respect of the Alpha Micro programs “will of itself involve the protection of the wrongdoing.” Leo Feist, supra, 138 F.2d at 976. Nor can it be said that the pre-1981 seminars “affect the equitable relations between the parties,” Mitchell Brothers Film Group, supra, 604 F.2d at 863, in respect of rights to use the Alpha Micro programs in 1986. That is especially so because any misconduct in which DSI may have engaged overseas took place at least five years ago.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear that DSI’s pre-1981 conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant denial of relief based on unclean hands. Although it cannot be positively asserted that Censor knew about those seminars, his testimony that he was “not clear or was certainly made aware directly for time-sharing charges” hardly settles the question of what Censor knew when. Further, it appears that despite the 1975 contract at least some aspects of the relationship between the parties remained unclear. Although it was quite clear that the games themselves and the 1975 programs belonged to Censor, and although plaintiff now concedes it cannot run the games without Censor’s permission, it is not incredible in view of the relationship between these parties that it did not occur to Melhado that the contract forbade him from running those games overseas.

I conclude, therefore that DSI’s pre-1981 training seminars should not bar present claims under the unclean hands doctrine. I therefore find the copyrights enforceable.

3. Infringement

Plaintiff asserts defendants have infringed its copyrights in two ways. First, according to DSI, defendants conducted several seminars using the copyrighted materials after February 14, 1986—the date by which Melhado’s February 3, 1986 letter demanded that defendants stop using the Alpha Micro software—and March 13, 1986, the date this Court issued a temporary restraining order barring defendants’ further use of the Alpha Micro software. Three such seminars appear to have been conducted during this period. Defendants argue that these seminars did not infringe plaintiff’s copyrights—the validity and ownership of which, of course, they do not concede—because under the 1975 contract they were entitled to use them.

Paragraph 13 of the 1975 agreement provides, in pertinent part, that DSI “may elect to stop providing consulting services, or proprietary software at any point in the future providing only that they do not stop providing such services in the course of a client engagement.” Defendants argue that this provision prohibits plaintiff from withholding services for a particular client once that client is “booked.” Since the