Court Opinion

ID: 9450138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:36:15.987296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:09.876038
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
I concur in the result, and in much of Judge Hunter’s able opinion. Approaching the case differently, however, I concur specially.
It seems to me that we must first decide what law is to be applied. Jurisdietion being based upon diversity of citizenship, the conflict of laws rules of the forum state must be utilized.1 Here, the forum state is Florida, but there is no indication what conflict of laws rule Florida would apply to a cause of action based on the misappropriation of an idea. There are three states which have had significant contacts with the subject matter involved in this suit: (1) Florida, the state in which most of the correspondence by OASIS was apparently written, the principal place of business of *675OASIS, and the state in which one of OASIS’s two corporate entities is incorporated; (2) New York, the principal place of business of Eastern and the state from or to which most of Eastern’s correspondence was mailed; (3) Massachusetts,2 the only state in which “Plane Facts” and “Flite Facts” were concurrently aired, the state of incorporation of OASIS’s other corporate entity, and the state to which Eastern mailed most of its correspondence intended for OASIS.3
The exact nature of any liability for the misappropriation of an unsolicited idea is not clear. Most courts speak in terms of implied-in-fact or quasi-contract,4 although other theories are frequently utilized.5 The Florida courts have never passed on this question. The most significant contact in this type of suit would seem to be the place where the idea was in fact appropriated.6 New York appears to be the place where the decisions not to use “Plane Facts” and to use “Flite Facts” were made. True, the direct conflict between the two programs occurred in Boston, although OASIS alleges that the use of “Flite Facts” in other cities prevented the planned expansion of “Plane Facts” to some of those cities. All things considered, New York has the more significant contacts so that Florida courts seemingly would apply New York law.
New York allows recovery for the mis-appi’opriation of an unsolicited idea on the basis of implied-in-fact or quasi-contract,7 provided, however, that the idea is novel8 and presented in concrete form.9 In the instant case concreteness is not questioned. Nevertheless, plaintiff must prove that those aspects of “Plane Facts” which Eastern allegedly appropriated were novel. The federal courts have treated the issue of novelty as a fact question, normally to be resolv*676ed by the jury.10 Eastern’s affidavit admits that through “Flite Facts” “Eastern was the first airline to provide such information every hour on the hour on a radio station.” It seems to me that whether this concept, never before used in this industry, was novel presented a question more properly left to a jury.
OASIS concedes that after “Plane Facts” had been disclosed to Eastern, but prior to Eastern’s inauguration of “Flite Facts,” OASIS began broadcasting its program on a Boston radio station. Eastern asserts that this was a general publication which prevents any recovery by OASIS.11 OASIS claims that its recovery does not fail unless it intended the publication to be an abandonment, citing Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Cal.App.1948, 192 P.2d 495, 507-508, aff’d en banc, 35 Cal.2d 653, 221 P.2d 73 (1949). In Stanley, however, there was a single performance of the program before a limited audience so as to give prospective purchasers a preview of what the suggested program would be like. In the instant case, “Plane Facts” was broadcasted continuously for anyone within listening distance of Boston to hear. Eastern, or any other airline, could have been apprized of the novel features of “Plane Facts” by merely listening to the Boston radio station, even without having been approached by OASIS. Under these circumstances, OASIS cannot have a cause of action for the misappropriation of its idea.
Another unusual facet of this case is that OASIS eventually did not propose to sell “Plane Facts” to Eastern, but only to obtain Eastern’s participation therein. Whether there can be quasi-contractual recovery in such a situation is a question which need not be reached in view of the publication of plaintiff’s idea.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
On Petition for Rehearing
Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and HUNTER, Jr., District Judge*
HUNTER, District Judge:
Upon considering the petition for rehearing filed by appellant, it is ordered and decreed that said petition be and it hereby is denied.
In passing it is affirmatively stated that the writer concurs in Judge Rives’ basis for affirmance.

. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 1941, 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477.

. A11 of the Massachusetts contacts occurred in Boston.

. In addition, a few of Eastern’s letters were sent by its Boston office.

. See, e. g., Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 2 Cir. 1946, 158 F.2d 631, 634, 170 A.L.R. 440 (applying New York law). However, traces of tort, copyright, and unfair competition law seem to have found their way into the “quasi-contract” approach.

. These include common-law copyright, breach of a fiduciary relationship, and unfair competition. See Note, 28 Albany L. Rev. 108, 108 n. 4 (1964).

. Even if the cause of action is viewed as being founded solely on quasi-contract, the result is probably the same. If it can be said that there was a pre-existing relationship, governed by New York law, prior to the enrichment, then Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 354 (k) (1) (TentDraft No. 6 1961) would apply New York law. But see Van Rensselaer v. General Motors Corp., E.D.Mich. 1962, 223 F.Supp. 323, 329, aff’d, 324 F.2d 354 (6 Cir. 1963). In either case, if the benefit or enrichment was the receipt of the idea itself (in New York), rather than the beneficial use of the idea in Boston and elsewhere, New York law would apply. See Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 354 (k) (2) (Tent.Draft No. 6 1961); Van Rensselaer v. General Motors Corp., supra.

. See, e. g., Healey v. R. H. Macy & Co., 1938, 277 N.Y. 681, 14 N.E.2d 388; Cole v. Phillips H. Lord, Inc., 1941, 262 App.Div. 116, 28 N.Y.S.2d 404; Robbins v. Frank Cooper Associates, 1963, 19 A.D.2d 242, 241 N.Y.S.2d 259; Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines, supra n. 4; Galanis v. Procter & Gamble Corp., S.D.N.Y.1957, 153 F.Supp. 34. But cf., Gromback Productions, Inc. v. Waring, 1944, 293 N.Y. 609, 59 N.E.2d 425; Carneval v. William Morris Agency, Sup.Ct.1953, 124 N.Y.S.2d 319, aff’d, 284 App.Div. 1041, 137 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1954). A few cases seem to distinguish between literary ideas and business ideas. See Oxenhandler v. Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, Sup.Ct.1962, 33 Misc.2d 626, 227 N.Y.S.2d 642; O’Brien v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1946, 68 F.Supp. 13. The type of the idea, however, seems to have Httle effect on the outcome of the suit.

. See, e. g., Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y, 1892, 132 N.Y. 264, 30 N.E. 506; Oxenhandler v. Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, supra n. 7.

. See, e. g., Williamson v. New York Central R.R., 1939, 258 App.Div. 226, 16 N.Y.S.2d 217; Plus Promotions, Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co., S.D.N.Y.1943, 49 F.Supp. 116.

. See Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Belt, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 210 F.2d 706; Galanis v. Procter & Gamble Corp., S.D.N.Y.1957, 153 F.Supp. 34.

. See Shanahan v. Macco Const. Co., Dist.Ct.App.1964, 36 Cal.Rptr. 584, 591 (Alternative holding); cf. Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y, 1892, 132 N.Y. 264, 30 N.E. 506.

 Judge Cameron, the third Judge constituting the Court which originally heard this case, died prior to the filing of the original opinion. He participated both in the hearing and the decision of that original opinion.