586 N.W.2d 232
No. 107420.April 12, 1998.Supreme Court of Michigan.
Decided June 16, 1998.
Leave to Appeal Denied June 16, 1998:
The cause having been briefed and orally argued, the order of December 3, 1997, 456 Mich. 898, granting leave to appeal is vacated, and leave to appeal is denied. Upon further review the Supreme Court is persuaded that the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering a remand for further hearings because the factual record is not sufficiently developed to resolve the issue as presented by the parties. It is noted that the record indicates differences exist among the various types of contracts under which Realtron operated. For example, while some contracts provided for the installation of software on mainframe computers located at the customer’s place of business, most provided access to software installed on mainframe computers located a Realtron’s data processing centers. This distinction may prove significant, yet we find the record unclear regarding the exact role that the software covered by the “access fee” played in creating a database versus providing access to information within that database. Moreover, even with respect to the majority of Realtron’s contracts, the extent and type of services provided by Realtron employees in regard to both creation/maintenance of a data base and providing access to that database needs clarification.
Court of Appeals No. 184519.
KELLY, J.
I would decide by written opinion the issues raised in the briefs by the parties.