Site Management Solutions, Inc. of Columbia Maryland, is a data center design and management consulting firm. Site Management Solutions employees sign an initial two-year employment commitment and the most promising employees are given extended job tours overseas. Since overseas experience is highly desirable, giving the employees a chance to command much higher salaries, prior to being posted overseas employees agree to work for a specified additional time upon their return to Maryland. Jeff worked for Site Management Solutions, but then he quit and formed a competing company which he called Data Center Design, Inc. His new company contacted Site Management Solutions employees by phone, offering higher salaries and bonuses if they would come work for Data Center Design. At least 10 former Site Management Solutions employees, several of whom had recently returned from overseas, left their jobs without completing their contractual obligations and went to work for Data Center Design. Site Management Solutions sued. What did it claim, and what should be the result?
THIS QUESTION IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY BUT THE FACTS MAY HAVE BEEN ALTERED. IF YOU THINK YOU RECALL THE ACTUAL STORY CLEARLY, YOU SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS HEREIN AND NOT THE FACTS FROM THE REAL STORY!
Back in the early 1980s Apple Computer, located in Cupertino, California, had suddenly gone from making personal computers in the garage of the parents of one of the company’s founders to being extremely important players in the technology field. Their initial computer design, created by co-founder Steve Wozniak, was a wonder of hardware engineering. However, co-founder Steve Jobs noticed that the competitive advantage Apple enjoyed was going to be short lived as others were starting to create cheaper computers that did the same things as those made by Apple. He felt that they needed a new advantage.
The Xerox Corporation had a facility known as the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) just down the road and they were interested in owning a share of Apple. Jobs had heard through the tech grapevine that PARC had created some genuinely new ways of working with computers so he made a deal with Xerox that if they would allow Apple to see what they were working on, and use it as the basis of their own software development, Apple would give Xerox a small equity stake in Apple. The managers in Xerox’s New York offices did not take PARC seriously so they viewed this as a way to make a quick buck on a business that was not a core interest of theirs. Apple took from Xerox the concept of a mouse, a graphical user interface (computers to that date had all been run by typing in long commands at a keyboard and seeing simple alphabetic responses in return), and some networking concepts, and they turned it all into the Macintosh.
In the mean time, Microsoft was designing application programs such as word processors and primitive spreadsheets and calculators for Apple computers. Apple very much wanted to have Microsoft design those programs to work on the new Mac so they sent Microsoft prototypes of the Mac. Microsoft was blown away by what Apple had come up with and they did indeed “port” their existing applications to the new environment.
The Macintosh came out to rave reviews and very soon afterwards, Microsoft released its first version of the Windows operating system which became the second commercially successful operating system that made use of a graphical user interface. Steve Jobs was furious. He called Bill Gates and threatened to sue on a variety of grounds, one of which was interference with a prospective advantage. Ultimately Apple decided that it was not in their best interest to sue for a lot of reasons.
If they had proceeded, could Apple have won? Are there other business torts they could have alleged? If so, explain the likely arguments they would have used. Also, explain any defenses Microsoft had available.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTION SHOULD NOT TAKE MORE THAN A PARAGRAPH OR TWO TO ANSWER!
After a long meeting with some executives of the company, Jane enters an elevator in the building owned by Hi-Flyer, Inc., and presses the button for the floor she wants to reach. The doors to the elevator close and suddenly the elevator goes into free fall, stopping abruptly at the lobby. Jane is seriously hurt and sues Hi-Flyer for damages. Upon receipt of the complaint, Hi-Flyer moves for summary judgment, noting that, while it is clear that Jane did fall, she has never proven, or for that matter even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Hi-Flyer, there is no evidence that they were at fault.
What is the ruling of the Court?
After a frustrating meeting with some executives of the company, Jane heads toward an elevator in the building owned by Hi-Flyer, Inc. A security guard yells to her to be sure she does not use the elevator on the left side since it is being serviced and the brakes might not work - she should only use the one on the right. Jane mutters fine and when she reaches the elevators, the one on the left opens first. She enters and presses the button for the floor she wants to reach. The doors to the elevator close and suddenly the elevator goes into free fall, stopping abruptly at the lobby. Jane is seriously hurt and sues Hi-Flyer for damages. She acknowledges that she was warned not to use that elevator, but she cites a statute that says that any company doing such work on an elevator that it knows could fail must display signs and put cones in front of the elevator, neither of which Hi-Flyer had done. Hi-Flyer acknowledges their failure. If this case were argued in Maryland, who would win? If it were argued in California, who would win? (the difference between the two states is in the slides I sent out on the topic of negligence!)
A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), stalled in rush hour traffic on a busy interstate highway because of a defective alternator, which caused a complete failure of the truck's electrical system. The driver stood nearby and waved traffic around his stalled truck. A panel truck approached the GMC truck, and immediately behind the panel truck, Davis was driving a Volkswagen fastback. Because of the panel truck, Davis was unable to see the stalled GMC truck. The panel truck swerved out of the way of the GMC truck, and Davis drove straight into it. The accident killed him. Davis's widow sued GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Comment.
Background / Brief Summary of the issue
Claim Sued by Site Managegemnt Solution - Site Management Solution sued. The claim is that the employees of Site management Solution has not completed their employment contract with organization. They had two year working contract and additional time contract for overseas employment. Penalties to be made against the employees who have not completed the employment contract with Site Management Solution.
Expected Claim Result - Since the employees had a signed employment contrac,t which they have not completed, then the result will be in fovour to Site Management Solution company, as the company had a signed employment contract with employees. The employees are suppose to work at Site managegent solution organization as per their signed contract. The court will ask the employees to work at Site Management Solution as per their contract else will need to pay the penalities.
Site Management Solutions, Inc. of Columbia Maryland, is a data center design and management consulting firm....