- 41 -
property. Sprint possessed two copies, while the manufacturer
possessed one. The record indicates that if Sprint had lost one
of its copies, or if one had been destroyed, it would have been
provided with another by the manufacturer. The copies were
interchangeable. There was no significance as to which copy it
used, where it existed, or in what form it existed. Sprint
purchased the right to use the intellectual property of the
manufacturer. The nexus between the intangible information and
the tangible medium is far more attenuated here than in Texas
Instruments, and like the software in Ronnen, is independent of
the tapes upon which it was received. See Bank of Vermont v.
United States, supra.
B. Characterize Property
Once the subject property is identified, it must be
characterized. This is a facts and circumstances analysis, the
focus of which is upon the relationship between the intangible
intellectual property and any tangible medium upon which it
exists. In Texas Instruments, the subject property, consisting
of the intangible information (seismic data) and the tapes, was
permanently embodied and inextricably bound. Therefore, the
property was tangible. Although in Texas Instruments, the
subject property was not software, we nevertheless borrowed the
analysis and applied it to software in Ronnen. Although our
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011