F.w. Dodge Co. v. Construction Information Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1903 |
| Citation | 183 Mass. 62,66 N.E. 204 |
| Parties | F. W. DODGE CO. v. CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Wm.
Odlin and Dunbar & Rackemann, for plaintiff.
Chas F. Choate, Jr., and Edw. C. Stone, for defendant.
This case comes before us on demurrers to the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff corporation has been engaged for some years in the business of collecting information in regard to the erection of buildings, both public and private the construction of sewers, waterworks, and other undertakings of public utility, as soon after they are contemplated as possible. This information is carefully compiled and distributed each day to the plaintiff's customers in accordance with their contracts, enabling them very early to take such steps as may seem to them best to obtain contracts to do the work or to furnish supplies. The plaintiff, at great expense, has many servants and agents employed in the collection, preparation, and distribution of this information, which it sells to its subscribers under a contract in writing, whereby the subscriber binds himself to use the reports in strict confidence, and for his business only. The formal contract with subscribers, annexed to the bill, which is in blank, with large spaces for writing in special arrangements, shows that the information may be printed, written, or oral, and implies that the information furnished to the subscribers is such as pertains to their different kinds of business, so that different subscribers receive information in detail on different subjects according to their interests. It also contains an agreement to be signed by each subscriber to hold the information in strict confidence, and for his business only. The plaintiff avers that the defendant corporation is engaged in the same kind of business as the plaintiff, and that it has obtained unlawfully and dishonestly, from the plaintiff's subscribers, information furnished them by the plaintiff under these contracts, being aware of the terms of the contracts between the plaintiff and its subscribers, and that it is purchasing these reports from these subscribers for cash, and is furnishing them to its subscribers daily, and is informing the plaintiff's subscribers that by subscribing for the reports of the defendant they will obtain the advantages of the plaintiff's reports for a less price than the plaintiff charges for them. The plaintiff says that the defendant has thereby prevailed upon many of the plaintiff's subscribers to cease buying the plaintiff's reports, and has caused the plaintiff great loss and damage. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction and an account.
The important question in this case may be divided into two parts: First. Has the plaintiff any property in the information after it has been obtained at great expense and compiled for the use of its subscribers? Second. Does it lose its property by publication, abandonment, or dedication to the public, when it furnishes the information to subscribers under these contracts? The facts, before it has ascertained them, unless they are held for a special purpose confidentially, and as secrets, are not property; but when these facts have been discovered promptly by effort and at expense, and have been compiled and put in form, and are of commercial value by reason of the speedy use that can be made of them before they have obtained general publicity, they are property. They represent expensive effort and valuable service, and, in the form in which they are presented to subscribers, they may be used with a reasonable expectation of profit from the early possession of them. The information is not visible, tangible property, but there is a valuable right of property in it, which the courts ought to protect in every reasonable way against those seeking to obtain it from the owner without right, to his damage. What the plaintiff has when the defendant seeks to obtain it from him is the possession of valuable information. This early possession is valuable in itself. The plaintiff has it and the defendant does not have it. If the defendant can obtain it legitimately, he becomes the owner of the same kind of property, and the two may become competitors in the market as vendors to those who are willing to pay for it. But if the defendant surreptitiously and against the plaintiff's will takes from the plaintiff and appropriates the form of expression which is the symbol of the plaintiff's possession, and thus, by direct attack, as it were, divides the plaintiff's possession, and shares it, this conduct is a violation of the plaintiff's right of property. That there is a right of property of this kind has been decided in England in regard to information of stock quotations...
To continue reading
Request your trial