FYI, that "series of numbers" doesn't trace a copy of the document.
It's a docket number and file clerk stamp. It's just part of the filing method for cases.
And I actually pulled the filing off of PACER earlier since I was curious to see if the case had merit.
Few things you've overlooked:
As mentioned by mt1955, the B&N NDA signed by Spring Design contained a clause stipulating that other outside or internal projects may already be under consideration or development that share similarities to the matter being discussed by the two parties.
Fairly standard boilerplate, but it does put the onus on Spring Design to show that B&N did in fact use information provided under the NDA to develop the Nook.
Also of interest are additional clauses in the B&N NDA stating that the presence of a NDA and discussions pursuant to it should not be construed as an intent to form a business relationship and neither party would be responsible for incurred costs should one party take actions anticipating a deal that never came through.
Furthermore, there was the standard choice of venue boilerplate clause in which Spring Designs explicitly consented that the NDA would be governed by New York law. Should B&N wish, they shouldn't have much difficulty having the case moved from SD.
What I found of most interest, however, were the "exhibits" attached to the complaint. If those powerpoint slides are representative of Spring Design's case, they have a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, that "series of numbers" doesn't trace a copy of the document. It's a docket number and file clerk stamp. It's just part of the filing method for cases. And I actually pulled the filing off of PACER earlier since I was curious to see if the case had merit. Few things you've overlooked: As mentioned by mt1955, the B&N NDA signed by Spring Design contained a clause stipulating that other outside or internal projects may already be under consideration or development that share similarities to the matter being discussed by the two parties. Fairly standard boilerplate, but it does put the onus on Spring Design to show that B&N did in fact use information provided under the NDA to develop the Nook. Also of interest are additional clauses in the B&N NDA stating that the presence of a NDA and discussions pursuant to it should not be construed as an intent to form a business relationship and neither party would be responsible for incurred costs should one party take actions anticipating a deal that never came through. Furthermore, there was the standard choice of venue boilerplate clause in which Spring Designs explicitly consented that the NDA would be governed by New York law. Should B&N wish, they shouldn't have much difficulty having the case moved from SD. What I found of most interest, however, were the "exhibits" attached to the complaint. If those powerpoint slides are representative of Spring Design's case, they have a problem.