|
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011), was a case in which CollegeSource sued AcademyOne for a number of claims including Computer Fraud and Abuse (CFAA). The case was dismissed by the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel in September 24, 2015 clearing AcademyOne of any wrong doing. Prior to summary judgement, The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that AcademyOne was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California, but not general personal jurisdiction. The court then remanded the case to the District Court for the Southern District of California for further proceedings. == Background == CollegeSource and AcademyOne are competitors in the market that helps prospective students with the college transfer process. CollegeSource maintain it’s principle place of business in California, while AcademyOne maintained it’s principle place of business in Pennsylvania. However, both companies seek to serve the transfer market online not bound by state or region. Important to the appeal, AcademyOne targeted prospective transfer students by state through use of Google AdWords, solicited California colleges and state educational agencies through phone and email, and sponsored the keynote speaker at a conference held for the benefit of higher education executive officers meeting in San Diego. CollegeSource claimed to own and copyright a digital collection of 44,000 course catalogs from 3,000 colleges, worth allegedly $10 million. The complete digital collection was available through subscription as .pdf files on CollegeSource’s websites. Known to CollegeSource, many of the .pdf files were also individually distributed across thousands of institutional websites. AcademyOne, a few months after its founding, made several attempts to inquire about CollegeSource’s collection of course catalogs as it researched how to compile a nationwide database of college and university level courses to support it's college transfer websites. At least three employees registered for trial membership with CollegeSource that allowed them to download three sample catalogs each. CollegeSource declined AcademyOne’s early attempts to partner to keep its competitive advantage in the market place. Therefore, AcademyOne decided to collect and build its own collection of college and university catalogs to harvest the course information. AcademyOne hired a China-based contractor to collect the catalogs and mine the course descriptions from the files or web pages. The contractor collected over 18,000 .pdf files and thousands of html pages containing course descriptions from a list of schools’ websites that AcademyOne had provided. During this process, the contractor collected roughly 680 .pdf files that contained CollegeSource’s splash page and copyright page. CollegeSource also claimed some courses descriptions displayed on AcademyOne's websites were mined and traceable to CollegeSource's electronic catalog versions because they supposedly contained typographical errors and "seeds" introduced by the digitization and conversion effort from years prior. Moreover, some of the course catalog pdf files included a page terms prohibiting redistribution, modification, or commercial use of the catalogs without consent of CollegeSource) on the second page of the .pdf. In April 2007, CollegeSource sent AcademyOne a cease-and-desist letter to stop using CollegeSource's college catalogs and the mined course descriptions based upon copyright and ownership claims. AcademyOne removed public access to the catalog files and course descriptions after they received the letter. However, CollegeSource later refuted this claim. CollegeSource submitted that AcademyOne left copies of CollegeSource’s catalogs on AcademyOne’s server for weeks and continued to keep copies of the course description on AcademyOne’s website while they researched CollegeSource's claims. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|