IP Introduction & Explanation - COURTNEY EDWARDS
The term of Intellectual Property can be defined as “A work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc” (wipo.int). If you create an idea or concept, like a painting, that is your intellectual property. The difference between intellectual property and physical property is that intellectual property comes from the mind, or intellect, while physical property is an object you own. If you listen to a song on your radio, the radio is your physical property, but the song playing is someone’s intellectual property. There are two subsections of intellectual property: industrial …show more content…
The three main arguments made by ZeniMax against Facebook are a misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of an non-disclosure agreements, and unjust enrichment. ZeniMax studio is arguing that while Luckey was employed he was put onto projects that were testing and looking into VR software and hardware that very much resembled that of the Oculus rift. ZeniMax stated that while employed he signed consent forms protecting their intellectual property. After working for ZeniMax Studios Luckey left and then went on to work for Facebook. Not long after Facebook announced their release for the Oculus Rift and ZeniMax knowing they had been working on similar works started filing the suit. To ZeniMax studios an employee who no longer worked for them switched over to a rival company and took with him trade secrets and knowledge that helped Facebook create a virtual reality headset. ZeniMax is also stating that instead of allowing for stake in what they helped create through research they are stealing their hard work and trained employees and receiving all the benefit. Despite many dismals from Facebook and Palmer Luckey, the judge is continuing on with the trial to find a verdict for the trial at …show more content…
However, by examining court documents the future of the Oculus and ZeniMax can go one of two ways. If Oculus is found guilty of all charges, it will be subjected to pay the following compensations[7]:
Actual Damages
Restitution
Disgorgement
Unjust Enrichment
Equitable Relief
Punitive and Exemplary Damages
Statutory Damages under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Enhanced Damages
Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest
Court Costs
Attorney Fees
All other relief to which ZeniMax is entitled
The extent of John Carmack’s involvement and liability is currently unknown, given the secrecy surrounding the case (which was requested from both the plaintiff and defender[7]).
If Oculus is found to be not guilty, the compensation Oculus receives is unclear due to the fact that no counter complaint has been filed against ZeniMax, nor are there any public terms of compensation for Oculus. Furthermore, ZeniMax may continue to pursue the case depending on what terms that Oculus would be found not guilty of. For instance, if Oculus is found to be not guilty of only some of the intellectual property, ZeniMax may appeal or file a separate complaint.
The future of the court case will certainly leave uneasy ground between Oculus, John Carmack and ZeniMax. However, the later implications of the case is
The term of Intellectual Property can be defined as “A work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc” (wipo.int). If you create an idea or concept, like a painting, that is your intellectual property. The difference between intellectual property and physical property is that intellectual property comes from the mind, or intellect, while physical property is an object you own. If you listen to a song on your radio, the radio is your physical property, but the song playing is someone’s intellectual property. There are two subsections of intellectual property: industrial …show more content…
The three main arguments made by ZeniMax against Facebook are a misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of an non-disclosure agreements, and unjust enrichment. ZeniMax studio is arguing that while Luckey was employed he was put onto projects that were testing and looking into VR software and hardware that very much resembled that of the Oculus rift. ZeniMax stated that while employed he signed consent forms protecting their intellectual property. After working for ZeniMax Studios Luckey left and then went on to work for Facebook. Not long after Facebook announced their release for the Oculus Rift and ZeniMax knowing they had been working on similar works started filing the suit. To ZeniMax studios an employee who no longer worked for them switched over to a rival company and took with him trade secrets and knowledge that helped Facebook create a virtual reality headset. ZeniMax is also stating that instead of allowing for stake in what they helped create through research they are stealing their hard work and trained employees and receiving all the benefit. Despite many dismals from Facebook and Palmer Luckey, the judge is continuing on with the trial to find a verdict for the trial at …show more content…
However, by examining court documents the future of the Oculus and ZeniMax can go one of two ways. If Oculus is found guilty of all charges, it will be subjected to pay the following compensations[7]:
Actual Damages
Restitution
Disgorgement
Unjust Enrichment
Equitable Relief
Punitive and Exemplary Damages
Statutory Damages under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Enhanced Damages
Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest
Court Costs
Attorney Fees
All other relief to which ZeniMax is entitled
The extent of John Carmack’s involvement and liability is currently unknown, given the secrecy surrounding the case (which was requested from both the plaintiff and defender[7]).
If Oculus is found to be not guilty, the compensation Oculus receives is unclear due to the fact that no counter complaint has been filed against ZeniMax, nor are there any public terms of compensation for Oculus. Furthermore, ZeniMax may continue to pursue the case depending on what terms that Oculus would be found not guilty of. For instance, if Oculus is found to be not guilty of only some of the intellectual property, ZeniMax may appeal or file a separate complaint.
The future of the court case will certainly leave uneasy ground between Oculus, John Carmack and ZeniMax. However, the later implications of the case is