Opinion ID: 3053020
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AMS Requested the Creation of the Programs

Text: [3] Gagnon argues that AMS never specifically requested that he create the programs, but “rather relayed its needs to Mr. Gagnon and he satisfied them by providing either computer hardware or computer software at his discretion.” We find this interpretation of “request” to be strained. Gagnon did not create the programs on his own initiative and market them to AMS; rather, he created them in response to AMS’s requests. Moreover, after prototype software was developed, he made changes to the programs in response to Akerstein and other AMS employees’ requests. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether AMS requested the programs. 4 Though delivery of a copy of software does not compel the conclusion that Gagnon granted AMS a license, it is a relevant factor that we may consider. See 17 U.S.C. § 202; Effects, 908 F.2d at 558 n.6 (recognizing that delivery is not dispositive, but “one factor that may be relied upon in determining that an implied license has been granted”). 12526 ASSET MARKETING v. GAGNON