"When I give, I give myself." -- Walt Whitman
Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 5:18 PM

By Randall S. Newton
Editor-in-Chief

GiveMePower Corporation, which creates and sells collaborative, AutoCAD-compatible CAD and digital blueprint management software and services, says it is “strongly encouraged” by recent rulings in its federal lawsuit against Pace Compumetrics.

While GiveMePower has not commented outside the courtroom on the extent of the damage it allegedly suffered at the hands of Pace Compumetrics, our analysis leads to the conclusion that GiveMePower needs to win this lawsuit to remain a viable business. Without the ability to protect contractors from being poached by other firms, as alleged by GiveMePower and explained below, GiveMePower loses a significant revenue stream. This case is also about the ability to defend the terms of a software license agreement. It is the one-two punch of both allegations that make this a must-win case for GiveMePower.

GiveMePower filed the lawsuit January 2007, less than 60 days after entering into a professional services agreement with Pace in which GiveMePower would provide building floor plan drawings for approximately 1,656 Bank of America building sites. GiveMePower claims that Pace violated both its contract and the software license, materially harming GiveMePower by hiring away contractors.

In its suit, GiveMePower is seeking more than $1.3 million in compensatory damages from Pace and other named defendants, as well as punitive damages, legal fees and any other damages which the court may award. Other named defendants include Terry Resnick, Pace's CEO; Jody Resnick, Pace's president; Ronald S. Berg, Pace's attorney; and Randolph "Skip" Willis, GiveMePower's former senior project engineer who was hired by Pace.

This week presiding United States District Court Judge, William Q. Hayes, ruled in GiveMePower’s favor on three motions pending before the court, including motions by defendants Pace, Berg and the Resnicks to dismiss the complaint and to strike specific portions of it.

“We feel validated on the merits of our lawsuit against Pace and the other defendants. We continue to aggressively seek full recovery of all damages we believe are rightfully due to GiveMePower and its valued shareholders, and are strongly encouraged by this most recent ruling,” says Bill Walton, president and CEO of GiveMePower.

The lawsuit complaint, as filed in the US District Court for Southern California, alleges that Pace engaged GiveMePower to provide “to-scale, as-built drawings for multi-level buildings as generated from Plantiff’s proprietary PowerCAD software systems.” To fulfill the contract, GiveMePower says it “hired at least eight highly skilled and specialized contractors it trained at its expense, and in reliance on Defendant’s contractual obligations.” Less than 30 days after the contract work commenced, GiveMePower alleges that Pace terminated the agreement, violating clauses in doing so, and that it hired several of the contractors trained by GiveMePower, also alleges to be in violation of the contract.

GiveMePower alleges that Pace intended to “seize control of and purloin [GiveMePower’s] uniquely trained, skilled, and knowledgeable consultants for its own benefit and misappropriated [GiveMePower’s] PowerCAD proprietary software license to avoid paying the cost of such services and value as required under the agreement.”

AECnews has talked to one of the contractors, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He confirmed the basic allegation that Pace had sought to hire the contractors trained by GiveMePower. The person we spoke to said he rebuffed their approach: “It just felt wrong.”

GiveMePower is seeking legal relief on eight claims:

  • Copyright infringement
  • Breach of license agreement
  • Conversion (copying software without permission)
  • Breach of contract
  • Breach of implied covenant of good faith
  • Interference with advantageous business relations
  • Fraudulent inducement
  • Unfair competition

Feedback

# re: GiveMePower Sees Progress in Lawsuit; Business Viability May Hang in the Balance

9/2/2007 1:28 PM by Dmitry Shkipin
I remember bidding on this contract as part of a joint venture. I think our scope was CA properties only. Whatever this company did in 30 days should be a fraction of 1.3 Mil stated. Pace should have done some research before awarding the contract to GMP and obviously got burned twice. In the past when faced with a large-scale project such as this, we see clients forming joint venture with various firms or individuals throughout the country (usually to off-set travel costs etc.) The smart thing to do would be to either hire individual contractors throughout the US or to create an asbuilt venture which would do the work.

Dmitry Shkipin
Prime Edge Asbuilt Services
442 Post Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Toll free: (888) 497-5320
http://www.primeedge.com
Comments on this post are closed