News
Contracts
Jun. 15, 2002
Winning By Design
The attorney also allegedly undermined the testimony of a defense witness by showing that the computer program he purportedly used to create portions of the disputed designs in 1989 didn't exist back then.
FACTS
In early 1992, plaintiff Michael Collins entered into a written agreement with a software company that agreed to pay him for the inclusion of his "library" of box designs in a computer program that customizes the size of packages manufacturers use to ship their products.
About one year later, the company Collins initially had worked with sold its program to the defendant, Encino-based Dimensional Impressions Cad Cam Systems Inc.
The contract required Dimensional to pay Collins $100 for any program sold that used his designs. At the end of 1998, the payments to Collins stopped.
CONTENTIONS
P - The defendant breached its contract by continuing to use the plaintiff's library of designs without paying him.
D - The defendant had stopped using the plaintiff's designs in its program. At most, the company continued to use only a fraction of Collins' library of works.
'COOL GRAPHICS'
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant unlawfully used more than 130 of his designs. His attorney, Scott E. Schutzman of Santa Ana, worried that he would lose the jury's attention if he brought out so many cardboard boxes for comparison.
"There was a real obstacle of boring the jury," Schutzman says.
So he used a computer-generated presentation that, he says, showed that the designs had been copied.
"There were cool graphics," he says. "We showed the design the [defendant's] program used. Then we superimposed Collins' design. If the two were exactly the same, it was apparent. If the two were slightly different, we showed the slight difference."
Opposing counsel Steven L. Feldman of Encino's Goldfarb Sturman & Averbach says that Schutzman's "computer show" made no big difference to the jury.
What hurt the defense's case was that an independent contractor testing the product inserted, without authorization, seven to 10 of the plaintiff's designs into the program, he says.
Nevertheless, that didn't justify the plaintiff's claim that his "library" of more than 100 works was copied, Feldman says.
"Seven to 10 designs does not a library make," Feldman says. "[But] the jury didn't buy that [argument]."
HOSTILE WITNESS?
The last defense witness ended up helping the plaintiff's case, Schutzman says.
Fong Lin testified that he might have helped create in 1989 a portion of the designs Collins took credit for.
But Schutzman says he proved that the program Lin said he had used did not come out until 1992, by which time Collins had created the designs Lin called into question.
"By the time cross-examination was finished, so was this witness," Schutzman says.
While Feldman disputes Schutzman's account of Lin's testimony, Feldman concedes that the jurors considered the witness abrasive and defensive.
FACTS
In early 1992, plaintiff Michael Collins entered into a written agreement with a software company that agreed to pay him for the inclusion of his "library" of box designs in a computer program that customizes the size of packages manufacturers use to ship their products.
About one year later, the company Collins initially had worked with sold its program to the defendant, Encino-based Dimensional Impressions Cad Cam Systems Inc.
The contract required Dimensional to pay Collins $100 for any program sold that used his designs. At the end of 1998, the payments to Collins stopped.
CONTENTIONS
P - The defendant breached its contract by continuing to use the plaintiff's library of designs without paying him.
D - The defendant had stopped using the plaintiff's designs in its program. At most, the company continued to use only a fraction of Collins' library of works.
'COOL GRAPHICS'
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant unlawfully used more than 130 of his designs. His attorney, Scott E. Schutzman of Santa Ana, worried that he would lose the jury's attention if he brought out so many cardboard boxes for comparison.
"There was a real obstacle of boring the jury," Schutzman says.
So he used a computer-generated presentation that, he says, showed that the designs had been copied.
"There were cool graphics," he says. "We showed the design the [defendant's] program used. Then we superimposed Collins' design. If the two were exactly the same, it was apparent. If the two were slightly different, we showed the slight difference."
Opposing counsel Steven L. Feldman of Encino's Goldfarb Sturman & Averbach says that Schutzman's "computer show" made no big difference to the jury.
What hurt the defense's case was that an independent contractor testing the product inserted, without authorization, seven to 10 of the plaintiff's designs into the program, he says.
Nevertheless, that didn't justify the plaintiff's claim that his "library" of more than 100 works was copied, Feldman says.
"Seven to 10 designs does not a library make," Feldman says. "[But] the jury didn't buy that [argument]."
HOSTILE WITNESS?
The last defense witness ended up helping the plaintiff's case, Schutzman says.
Fong Lin testified that he might have helped create in 1989 a portion of the designs Collins took credit for.
But Schutzman says he proved that the program Lin said he had used did not come out until 1992, by which time Collins had created the designs Lin called into question.
"By the time cross-examination was finished, so was this witness," Schutzman says.
While Feldman disputes Schutzman's account of Lin's testimony, Feldman concedes that the jurors considered the witness abrasive and defensive.
- Eron Ben-Yehuda
#299596
Eron Yehuda
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com