Id. MB also insinuates that both the district court and Seventh Circuit opinions in Boop v. Ford Motor Co., 177 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.Ind. 1959), aff'd, 278 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1960), promote its defense to this action. But, although the Boop litigation shared several similarities with the case before the court, a cause of action in tort was not among them.
" Id. at 184. The reasons which have led us to conclude that the Milton Bradley disclosure agreement is ambiguous insofar as a waiver of confidential relationship is indicated also lead us to find unpersuasive the few cases which equate disclaimers like the present one, or that discussed in Houser v. Snap-On Tools, with the explicit waiver of a confidential relationship found, for example, in Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 203 U.S.P.Q. 885. Hisel v. Chrysler Corp., 94 F. Supp. 996 (W.D.Mo. 1951); Boop v. Ford Motor Co., 177 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.Ind. 1959), aff'd, 278 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1960). Moreover, there are policy considerations that militate against reading ambiguous disclosure forms to disclaim tort liability.
The District Court granted Ford's motion for a summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and the suit. The District Court's opinion is printed in 177 F. Supp. 522. Plaintiff claims he developed new and novel ideas for mounting a corn picker on a Ford tractor; that he revealed these ideas to representatives of Dearborn on several occasions between 1947 and 1952; that Ford began the manufacture of mounted corn pickers in 1955, and that such corn pickers incorporated his novel ideas.
Rolle Mfg. Co. v. Marco Chemicals, Inc., D.C., 92 F. Supp. 218 (1950). In determining whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the District Court must consider only those facts which were not in dispute and the plaintiff's version of any facta, material to the issue involved in the motion which are in dispute, Boop v. Ford Motor Co., D.C., 177 F. Supp. 522, 7 Cir., 278 F.2d 197 (1959). All doubt must be decided against movant and resolved in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed giving to that party the benefit of all favorable inferences and presumptions that may be drawn from the evidence.
However, unless that idea was a novel and original conception with him he had no property right in it which he could enforce as against defendants." To the same effect, see Boop v. Ford Motor Co., 177 F. Supp. 522, 525, aff'd. 278 F.2d 197, 200 (7 Cir. 1960).
It is evident that the features of Flemming's artificial candle which may also be found in the Ronson product are not so novel as to create the inference that defendant utilized or copied plaintiff's idea. In the case of Boop v. Ford Motor Company, 177 F. Supp. 522 (D.C. Ind. 1959), aff'd 278 F.2d 197 (7 Cir. 1960), plaintiff alleged that he had developed certain new ideas for mounting a corn picker on a tractor; that these were revealed to a representative of defendant, and that thereafter Ford came out with a mounted picker which incorporated his ideas. The court rejected the claim, noting that although plaintiff's idea was admittedly similar in some respects to the Ford picker, this was insufficient, since all mounted pickers of necessity had to be alike in many respects.