in the form of its “unique business and marketing systems, its data base, its 800 number, and its very ability to do business”. Appellant’s Brief at 28. Noting that it is an issue of first impression for the District of Columbia whether the tort of conversion should encompass intangible rights other than ones “ ‘customarily merged in, or identified with some document’ ”, 839 F.Supp. at 933 (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 15, at 92 (5th ed. 1984)), the court rejected the claim on the theory that the District of Columbia would not so extend the tort. The district court may have been correct, but we note that some courts have extended conversion in this way. See, e.g., National Surety Corp. v. Applied Systems, Inc., 418 So.2d 847, 849 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the court here did not need to
holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer holding that conversion would lie for copying and taking of computer programs even if defendant never took the tapes embodying the programs holding legislature was required to provide a system of free education to the public including programs for the handicapped holding that prisons have programs services or activities because they provide inmates with many recreational activities medical services and educational and vocational programs  holding that prisoner whose primary means of communication was sign language was entitled to interpreter under the ada and rehabilitation act for disciplinary procedures medical care education programs and counseling