Inslaw, Inc is a Washington, DC based information technology company that markets case management software for corporate and government users.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,401 |
Inslaw, Inc is a Washington, DC based information technology company that markets case management software for corporate and government users.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,401 |
Inslaw is known for developing Promis, an early case management software system.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,402 |
Inslaw won damages in bankruptcy court, but these were overturned on appeal.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,403 |
Inslaw's claims were finally referred by Congress to the Court of Federal Claims in 1995, and the dispute ended with the Court's ruling against Inslaw in 1998.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,404 |
Inslaw began as a non-profit organization called the Institute for Law and Social Research.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,405 |
In January 1981 Hamilton established the for-profit Inslaw, transferring the Institute's assets over to the new corporation.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,406 |
The now for-profit Inslaw responded to the RFP, and in March 1982 was awarded the three year $10m contract by the contracting division, the Executive Office of United States Attorneys.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,407 |
EOUSA claimed that Inslaw had overcharged for this service and withheld payments.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,408 |
DOJ ultimately acquired Prime computers, and Inslaw began installing Promis on these in the second year of the contract, in August 1983.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,409 |
Inslaw responded in February 1983 that it was willing to provide the computer tapes and documents for Promis, but that the tapes it had were for the VAX version of Promis, and included proprietary enhancements.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,410 |
DOJ response to Inslaw was to emphasize that the implementation contract called for a version of PROMIS in which the government had unlimited rights and to ask for information about the enhancements Inslaw claimed as proprietary.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,411 |
Inslaw agreed to provide this information, but noted that it would be difficult to remove the enhancements from the time-sharing version of Promis and offered to provide the VAX version of Promis if the DOJ would agree to limit their distribution.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,412 |
Inslaw then provided DOJ with tapes and documentation for the VAX version of Promis.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,413 |
Under this arrangement Inslaw had substantial difficulty demonstrating the extent of the enhancements and the use of private funding in their development.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,414 |
Since none of the available versions of Promis was compatible with the Department's new Prime computers, Inslaw ported the VAX version, which contained Inslaw's claimed enhancements, to the Prime computers.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,415 |
When Inslaw learned of the installations, it notified EOUSA that this was in violation of Modification 12 and filed a claim for $2.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,416 |
Inslaw filed claims for services performed during the contract, for a total of $4.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,417 |
Inslaw appealed the denial of the service fees to the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,418 |
Inslaw's initial filing claimed that the contract disputes arose because the DOJ officials who administered the contract were biased against Inslaw.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,419 |
Inslaw claimed that Brewer's dismissal caused him to be unreasonably biased against Inslaw and owner William Hamilton.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,420 |
Inslaw had helped to develop another competing case management software system several years earlier, and Inslaw claimed that this led him to be prejudiced against Promis, so that he ignored the unreasonable bias of Brewer.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,421 |
In February 1987, Inslaw requested an "independent handling hearing", to force the DOJ to conduct the adversary hearing "independent of any Department of Justice officials involved in the allegations made" in the hearing.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,422 |
The Hamiltons had Inslaw's attorneys depose the people whom Pasciuto had named.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,423 |
Inslaw sought re-appointment early in 1987, but was informed in December that the Court of Appeals had chosen another candidate.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,424 |
Bason's last actions in the case were to file a written ruling on Inslaw's adversary proceeding, and to award damages and attorneys fees to Inslaw.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,425 |
Inslaw appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,426 |
Inslaw told PSI investigators that the DOJ had undermined Bankruptcy Court Judge Bason's reappointment, and had attempted to undermine Inslaw's lead counsel in the bankruptcy suit.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,427 |
Inslaw did this, the report stated, in order to gain support for the EOUST from the DOJ.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,428 |
Judge Bason had found that DOJ's claim it was concerned about Inslaw's financial condition when it requested a copy of Promis was a false pretext.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,430 |
Inslaw found that Michael Riconosciuto had given inconsistent accounts in statements to the Hamiltons, his affidavit, and in testimony at his 1992 trial for manufacturing methamphetamine.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,431 |
Inslaw responded to the Bua report with a 130-page Rebuttal, and another set of new allegations in an Addendum.
FactSnippet No. 1,659,432 |