California Judge denies preliminary injunction in joojoo case

Have you ever had a great idea, had someone else take it, sell it and not give you anything? That's essentially the claim here in Interserve v. Fusion Garage. It involves the joojoo which I have pictured to the right.

The Court notes, "ideas are as free as the air and as speech and the senses" generally they are not attached to any protection. You cannot sue for stealing an idea, but the way the idea was shared may create an implied contract, the breach of which is actionable. See Hollywood Screetest v. NBC Universal.

In that regard, Interserve believes that a joint venture exists between the parties wants a preliminary injunction to sequester funds from Fusion Garage from the sales of the device. It argues that there is an imminent need for this injunction because Fusion Garage has money trouble and the money may be gone soon. As Judge Richard Seeborg notes, if there isn't much money from the sales of the device, why are you suing about it?

The judge denied the motion for a preliminary injuction. However, he found that there is a showing of a joint venture between the parties which saves the complaint in its entirety from a motion to dismiss.

The case is Interserve Inc. et al. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. No. C 09-5812 RS and the opinion is below the jump.

Here is the opinion:
Inverserve v. Fusion Garage MPI