Library Technology Guides

Blog content

Profile


Photo of Marshall Breeding author of

Name: Marshall Breeding

Title: Publisher

Organization: Library Technology Guides


GuidePosts

Perspective and commentary by Marshall Breeding

subscribe to GuidePosts via RSS


Queens Borough Public Library vs. Sirsi Corporation

The Queens Borough Public Library, one of the largest and busiest libraries in the United States, has filed a major lawsuit against Sirsi Corporation, which currently does business as SirsiDynix. The lawsuits relates to the Library’s procurement of the Horizon library automation system from Dynix Corporation, which was subsequently acquired by Sirsi Corporation. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York on July 2, 2009. An initial conference is currently scheduled for November 2, 2009.

The complaint lists 10 demands:

WHEREFORE, the Library demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

  1. With respect to the Library's First Cause of Action against defendant Dynix for breach of contract, awarding the Library compensatory damages against Dynix in the aggregate amount, not less than $5,000,000, plus reasonable attorneys fees, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  2. With respect to the Library's Second Cause of Action against defendants Dynix and Sirsi Holdings for unjust enrichment, awarding the Library compensatory damages against Dynix in the aggregate amount, not less than $5,000,000, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  3. With respect to the Library's Third Cause of Action against defendants Dynix and Sirsi Holdings for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, awarding the Library compensatory damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000, plus reasonable attorneys fees, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  4. With respect to the Library's Fourth Cause of Action against all Defendants for fraud, awarding the Library compensatory damages against Dynix in an amount of not less than $5,000,000, and punitive damages in an amount not less than $10,000,000, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  5. With respect to the Library's Fifth Cause of Action against all Defendants for violation of New York State General Business Law § 349 awarding the Library (a) damages as provide by law, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial; and (b) reasonable attorneys pursuant to General Business Law § 349(h);
  6. With respect to the Library's Sixth Cause of Action for breach of the Guaranty against defendant Sirsi Holdings, awarding the Library compensatory damages against Sirsi Corp. in an amount of not less than $5,000,000, plus reasonable attorneys fees, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  7. With respect to the Library's Seventh Cause of Action for tortious interference against defendant Sirsi Corp, awarding the Library damages against Sirsi Corp. in an amount of not less than $5,000,000, and punitive damages in an amount not less than $10,000,000, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial;
  8. With respect to the Library's Eighth Cause of Action for fraudulent conveyance against all Defendants, awarding the Library judgment setting aside the fraudulent conveyances of the assets and/or imposing a constructive trust over such assets to satisfy any judgment entered in this action;
  9. With respect to the Library's Ninth Cause of Action for breach of express and implied warranties against defendants Dynix and Sirsi Holdings, awarding the Library compensatory damages in an amount of not less than $5,000,000, together with accrued and accruing interest, costs, fees, the final amount of which shall be determined at trial; and
  10. granting to the Library such other further and/or different relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.

Keep in mind that at this point none of the claims made in the compliant have been proven in any court. While a lawsuit of this magnitude may be interesting news, the real story will happen as it works its way through the legal system.

Oct 3, 2009 18:49:22


Could this be the seminal event leading to more lawsuits from other libraries? While the courts will have to decide if SirsiDynix is in breach of contract, it makes me wonder if any other libraries will view this as a catalyst and pursue their own court decided solution.

Franklin Lester Oct 6, 2009 08:48:47

Login or register to leave a comment.


3M vs EnvisionWare

Another lawsuit is underway in the library underway in the library automation industry, this time in the RFID and self-service circulation arena. 3M, one of the veteran companies in the use of electromagnetic and RFID technologies for library security systems, self-check, inventory, and other automation functions has filed suit against EnvisionWare, Inc. which has more recently introduced a suite of competing products. The complaint (Case 0-09-cv-01594-ADM-FLN) filed in the United States District Court of Minnesota on June 23, 2009, describes the products and technologies 3M has developed and refers to the patents that it has been awarded. 3M claims that specific EnvisionWare’s products infringe upon patents that it has been awarded. Products in question include EnvisionWare’s LibraryPDA, selected features in its OneStop self-service circulation system dealing with fines and fees.

The patents which 3M claims have been infringed include: "Applications For Radio Frequency Identification Systems" United States Patent No. 6,232,870, "Applications For Radio Frequency Identification Systems" United States Patent No. 6,486,780, and "Terminal For Libraries And The Like" United States Patent No. 6,857,568.

No specific amount of damages is mentioned in the complaint. A date for trial has not yet been set.

Oct 21, 2009 20:44:57

Login or register to leave a comment.


Clifford Lynch clarifies views relative to open source ILS efforts

This morning I contacted Clifford Lynch, Executive Director for the Coalition for Networked Information regarding the quote that was attributed to him in the white paper authored by Stephen Abram that that has caused a firestorm on Twitter today.

Here is the response that I received and am posting with his permission:

I don't think that I ever wrote those words down in an article; I suppose I may have said something to that effect in an interview or q&a in some conference program like ALA Top Tech, though perhaps no quite as strongly as it's expressed here. I have without question spoken out about my concerns regarding investment in open source ILS development in the last few years. IF I did say this, it feels like it's used a little out of context -- or maybe the better characterization is over-simplistically -- in the report.

Perhaps the most useful thing to do would be to simply and briefly restate my current views on this. You are welcome to quote or share this; it would probably be best to use it in its entirety if you do.

I am very concerned that there are unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished in terms of economic payoff or improvement in quality of service in the ILS world through investment in the re-implementation of traditional ILS systems; there is a mature, competitive market in such systems, and I question whether the choice to invest in developing an open source ILS makes sense given very constrained resources. The issue here is investment priorities. If we choose to do this, we need to be very clear about what we are trying to accomplish, and how the open source implementation gets us there. Also, there's a lot of confusion among the ideas of open source as a way of disseminating the results of research and allowing others to build upon the research, the idea of open source (or community source) as a means of engineering and developing a system that is conceptually fairly mature and can serve as a collective good, and the possibility and effectiveness of open or community source programs as a means of doing collective research and development.

I think there are still major problems -- many of which we really don't know how to solve effectively, and which call for sustained and extensive research and development -- in various areas where ILS get involved in information discovery and the support of research and teaching. While I'm not opposed to seeing an open source ILS -- who could be? -- and recognize that it could be very useful, particularly as a platform for research and future innovation, open source re-implementation of current ILS functionality will not be a panacea for these still-unsolved challenges.

Thanks for asking about this. I hope this is helpful both in clarifying my thinking on this, and, more importantly, advancing the community debate about the best courses of action here.

Oct 30, 2009 09:09:11

Login or register to leave a comment.



Archive

Oct 2014 (1 post)
Aug 2014 (1 post)
Jul 2014 (3 posts)
Jun 2014 (1 post)
Apr 2014 (1 post)
Mar 2014 (1 post)
Feb 2014 (1 post)
Dec 2013 (1 post)
Nov 2013 (3 posts)
Aug 2013 (2 posts)
Jun 2013 (1 post)
Apr 2013 (1 post)
Jan 2013 (2 posts)
Dec 2012 (1 post)
Nov 2012 (1 post)
Oct 2012 (1 post)
Sep 2012 (1 post)
Aug 2012 (1 post)
Jun 2012 (2 posts)
May 2012 (3 posts)
Mar 2012 (1 post)
Feb 2012 (1 post)
Jan 2012 (2 posts)
Dec 2011 (3 posts)
Nov 2011 (3 posts)
Oct 2011 (1 post)
Aug 2011 (1 post)
Jul 2011 (1 post)
May 2011 (1 post)
Apr 2011 (1 post)
Mar 2011 (3 posts)
Jan 2011 (1 post)
Dec 2010 (2 posts)
Nov 2010 (2 posts)
Sep 2010 (1 post)
Aug 2010 (2 posts)
Jul 2010 (1 post)
Jun 2010 (2 posts)
May 2010 (1 post)
Mar 2010 (2 posts)
Feb 2010 (1 post)
Jan 2010 (3 posts)
Dec 2009 (2 posts)
Nov 2009 (2 posts)
Oct 2009 (3 posts)
Sep 2009 (2 posts)
Aug 2009 (1 post)
Jul 2009 (1 post)
Jun 2009 (1 post)
May 2009 (1 post)
Apr 2009 (2 posts)
Mar 2009 (1 post)
Feb 2009 (1 post)
Jan 2009 (2 posts)
Dec 2008 (1 post)
Oct 2008 (2 posts)
Sep 2008 (2 posts)
Aug 2008 (5 posts)
Jul 2008 (1 post)
Jun 2008 (4 posts)
May 2008 (2 posts)
Apr 2008 (3 posts)
Mar 2008 (2 posts)
Feb 2008 (2 posts)
Jan 2008 (2 posts)
Dec 2007 (2 posts)
Nov 2007 (3 posts)
Oct 2007 (3 posts)
Sep 2007 (1 post)
Aug 2007 (3 posts)
Jul 2007 (1 post)