assets used and necessary in the operations of the transportation services being transferred.” R.35, Ex.16 at 1. It does not follow from this statement that the right to reproduce and sell copies of the program to third parties was included in the sale of assets. The only right that seems “necessary” to the freight forwarding service (and thus transferred by the Asset Agreement) is a copy with the right to use and modify the program, which is what ITOF-CA argues was transferred. MegaTrans is being sued for reproducing and selling copies to other companies — not for using the program in its own freighting services. Commercial distribution of software does not appear to be “necessary” to conducting freight forwarding servic A. No. 91-2452-EEO, 1993 WL 191323, at *6 (D.Kan. May 25, 1993) (<HOLDING>). Even in Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco
holding that bank was entitled to attorney fees on appeal when agreement did not prohibit such fees holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding that plaintiffs due process rights were violated when state licensing officials misapplied state licensing law in order to keep plaintiffs from competing in business against one official holding that agreement conferring  all rights to the completed program with no licensing or royalties fees due  conveyed the copyright holding that by licensing intangibles for use in south carolina holding company had substantial nexus such that taxing royalties from intellectual property would not violate the dormant commerce clause