X-IT AND KIDDE CASE Ives diversification plan entailing different lengths of the ladder, developing children’s ladderor even fire extinguisher is a market strategy that would have avoided the decline stage. The product mix i. e. X-IT and these products would have broadened the market. The best strategy so far would be the children’s ladder since all together it’s a new idea with a wide target market i. e. schools, hospitals etc. A different length ladder would eventually be adopted by its competitors hence not a very good product to invest in.
On the contrary, the fire extinguishers would be easily adopted in the market but the uniqueness of the product should be thoroughly and uniquely designed. Kidde’s actions were ruthless. The management explicitly went behind X-IT to steal the ladder. The intentions being they were more immersive in form of resources but couldn’t buy the product at the fair stated price of $16 by X-IT. The biggest mistake X-IT made was allowing access to its property conceptual rights to its competitors. With the situation at hand, X-IT should have realized that the product was bound to be reproduced in the market sooner or late.
They should have diversified in their products or should have agreed to sell the patent rights. X-IT was to blame for allowing its competitor to review its product before reaching a conclusive level of agreement. It should have brought in new terms of the contract rather than giving the Kidde the access to its confidential documents. DiBelardino should take Kidde to court. This would be on the grounds of violation of property and patents rights. Kidde’s strategy was to swindle X-IT of its product ab-initial.
They went forth to use on of its employees to go through the confidential documents of X-IT and intentional stealing the ideas of the product design. This is against the law since the means of acquiring the product design could be justified if DiBelardino could trace the email communications with Oslokavic to the company management concerning the patents rights review. The prior mistake was failure to hire an attorney to represent him in this review. Whatever the case the outcome cannot be justified since the confidential letter clearly indicated the terms.
The signed letter should be presented as exhibit to the magistrate together with the package design that Kiddes took. This would be a battle of tags and eventually clear original design of the product should be presented to the court. X-IT can claim against damages so caused and try to claim for its property rights violation. The final strategy would be to fight for its patent rights violation. The whole copied product differed in the window attachment hence it would be easier to prove its loyalty rights.
Infringement so caused by Kiddes was made following ongoing discussion in selling the rights. This is enough proof that the intentions were to swindle X-IT from the initial contract agreement. With proper representation, they are bound to win on either ground. Breach of contract is an offense in law as well as the tort of negligent acts. A misrepresentation was made by Kidde in the contract agreement hence liable for damages (Nili and Ewan, 209). Work cited Nili Cohen and Ewan McKendrick, Comparative remedies for breach of contract Volume 5, Hart Publishing, Washington, pg.