Aella Credit Case Study Aella Credit gains a competitive edge, improves identity verification, and grows from 5, tocustomers in several months. The organization provides access to credit to customers across Nigeria through an online loan-processing platform.
United States District Court, D. Gursky Shaw, Lauren S. This is a trademark case. Plaintiff Lucent Information Management, Inc. Defendant Lucent Technologies, Inc. LIM filed a complaint on September 12,alleging that LTI is engaging in trademark infringement in violation of federal law, 15 U.
On May 14,LIM filed a supplemental complaint, adding five additional claims. The claims are for copyright infringement, tortious interference with prospective business relations, violation of the Lanham Act, and trade libel.
Count X alleges that if these letters do constitute an Lucent technologies harvard case, then LTI is liable for fraud in the inducement. LIM was formed in by four individuals: They formed the company in order to offer services for document imaging and management.
On September 5,Mr. Feinstein sent out a letter on Corporate Consultants letterhead to approximately 50 people, announcing the formation of LIM and the goals of the company.
The parties never signed the agreement. As part of this survey, DDC distributed two letters that were very similar to the September 5, letter that LIM sent to potential customers.
The first letter is an almost exact duplicate — the only differences are the letterhead Lucent Information Management, Inc. DDC sent the survey to the prospective participants via Federal Express, with instructions not to open the package until they received a phone call from the entity conducting the survey.
DDC paid participants for taking part in the survey. On February 5,one of the participants in the survey, Paul H. Ripley, called LIM and spoke with Feinstein. Ripley claimed that the questions seemed unimportant and that the person asking the questions seemed uninterested in the answers.
On February 7,another participant, Herman T. Fishbein, wrote a letter to Feinstein at "Loser Information Management" to complain about the survey. Fishbein claimed that he had been told he would be called at In his letter, Fishbein noted that he would have little faith in a company that could not even make a phone call at an agreed-upon time.
Finally, Count X alleges that LTI engaged in fraud in the inducement of a contract, if the court finds that the letters between the two companies before LIM filed suit constitute a valid agreement. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment Federal copyright law provides an exception to the prohibition on reproduction of a copyrighted work where the reproduction qualifies as "fair use. The statute describes as fair use those instances where the reproduction is used for "such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching The copyright statute lays out the factors that a court should consider when determining whether use of a work in a particular case is a fair use.
The court will consider each of these factors in turn. Purpose and character of use The first factor to consider is the way in which LTI used the copyrighted letter.
While this factor may include several elements, the copyright statute specifically mentions commercial use as opposed to educational use. The Supreme Court has gone so far as to say that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively Universal City Studios, Inc.
The Court expressed concern that assigning a presumption of unfairness to commercial use "would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed" in section In contrast, the instant case involves the "exceptional case of nonprofit exploitation.
LIM does not claim that there are customers willing to buy copies of this letter, or that LTI is somehow profiting from the survey it is conducting. Thus, this first factor weighs in favor of a finding of fair use. Nature of the copyrighted work The second factor takes into account the "measure of creativity" of the copyrighted work.
American Geophysical, 60 F.Lucent Technologies Case Yulissa T. Ortiz Salgado March 30, Financial Reporting: Peeking Under the Financial Hood Mrs.
Darcie Sargent The Lucent Technologies is a company that helps creating new revenue generating opportunities for customers through the communication service. We all know how useful and important . Plaintiff Lucent Information Management, Inc.
("LIM") is a Pennsylvania corporation specializing in computer document management systems. Defendant Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("LTI") is a Delaware corporation that provides goods and services in telecommunication and information systems. As the open source movement reaches the two-decade milestone, thoughts turn to the movement's achievements and future goals.
This document contains information relevant to 'Extensible Markup Language (XML)' and is part of the Cover Pages resource. The Cover Pages is a comprehensive Web-accessible reference collection supporting the SGML/XML family of (meta) markup language standards and their application.
The principal objective in this public access knowledgebase is to promote and enable the use of open. Placement Point a leading website for job placement, jobs, hot jobs, job listing, online jobs, job opportunity vacancies, consultancy, job search engine, naukri in Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Custom Lucent Technologies: Provisioning and Postponement Harvard Business (HBR) Case Study Analysis & Solution for $ Technology & Operations case study assignment help, analysis, solution,& example.