|
What the Courts Said
About ISR
Court:
This may be a dumb question, but you begin, for example,
with a number of your materials and your testimony here
today with the expression of your concern to avoid infant
drowning and infant brain damage. Put it simply. Wouldn’t
it be in the public interest to create a worldwide net of
instructors who can accomplish this very worthy goal?
Barnett: Yes, sir,
that’s what I’m attempting to do.
Court: So long as
there is money coming back to you.
We can see Barnett's
expression; priceless.
Transcript of Hearing on Preliminary Injunction, February 1,
2001
ISR argues that if instructors are
trained improperly, children could die.
I am unpersuaded.
Lewis T. Babcock, Chief
Judge, Federal Court for District of Colorado
Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, April 16, 2001
ISR has provided no evidence that any
instructor trained in Defendant’s curriculum would pose any
greater risk to children than does the average new ISR
instructor. I therefore conclude that
ISR has failed to meet its burden to show that a preliminary
injunction is in the public’s best interest.
Lewis T. Babcock, Chief
Judge, Federal Court for District of Colorado
Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, April 16, 2001
“The Court also agrees with
the defendants that despite all the evidence offered at
trial, it is difficult to articulate the contours of
plaintiff's trade secret with any precision.
Thus, . . . there is no basis on
which to enjoin any defendant from violating plaintiff's
unspecified trade secret(s), whatever those trade secret(s)
may be.”
Phillip
Figa, District Court Judge, Federal Court for
District of Colorado
Global Ruling on Post Trial Motions, May 5, 2004
“[Even after the evidence] it
remains unclear to this Court exactly what "confidential
information" may have been used by the defendants in their
business of teaching swimming to either instructors or
students. It also remains murky to this Court exactly what
part of the "methods, materials, techniques, trade secrets
and/or systems used by ISR" are confidential, for as the
defendants correctly point out, plaintiff argued that it was
the system as a whole that was the trade secret. To the
extent that plaintiff has not articulated with specificity
the contours of plaintiff's "confidential information," or
the confidential "methods, materials, techniques, trade
secrets and/or systems used by ISR," which it seeks to be
the subject of the proposed injunction, this Court agrees
with defendants that any such injunction would be imprecise
and could lead to further costly and probably meaningless
litigation.”
Phillip
Figa, District Court Judge, Federal Court for
District of Colorado
Global Ruling on Post Trial Motions, May 5, 2004
CLICK HERE FOR FINAL ORDER
|
