White SW Computer Law
|
Intellectual Property, Information Technology &
Telecommunications Lawyers
|
|
Postal Address: PO Box 452 Collins Street West, Melbourne Victoria 8007 AUSTRALIA
|
|
GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 AUSTRALIA
|
|
Telephone: +61 3 9629 3709 Facsimile: +61 3 9629 3217
|
|
Email : wcl@computerlaw.com.au
Internet : http://www.computerlaw.com.au
|
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
NEWSLETTER - FEBRUARY 1997
In this issue:
Does your software
development agreement define in adequate detail the dates for delivery
and at what development stage the product is to be delivered?
Warranties and Limitation
of Liability
Contract negotiations
in Cyberspace
Should you be expected
to know if an imported good infringes an Australian copyright?
Do you use music
in developing multimedia products or advertising?
Does your computer
program produce forms similar to those produced by a similar program?
Do you do business
on the internet, beware of foreign laws!
Does your software
development agreement define in adequate detail the dates for delivery
and at what development stage the product is to be delivered?
Unless there is a clear written agreement,
the customer and developer can have different interpretations of delivery
dates and the development timetable. Does your agreement draw attention
to the fact that it cannot be warranted that the software is "bug free".
Some customers with little exposure to software development can expect
to receive a perfect product on the delivery date. In a UK case,
Virgin Interactive Entertainment (Europe) Ltd v Bluewall Ltd & Ors, Virgin
agreed to a variation of the delivery date, but there was no written agreement
prepared which outlined what was to be delivered and when under the revised
agreement. Bluewall was developing two computer games which they were unable
to deliver on the delivery date. They claimed that Virgin had agreed that
the revised delivery dates were flexible and that the product was to be
delivered at an Alpha version stage. Both these points were refuted by
Virgin. The Court found in favour of the customer. One wonders if the developer
had a limitation of liability clause in the contact in order to limit the
damages payable in such a dispute.
Contents
Warranties and Limitation
of Liability
It is human nature to agree to just about
anything if you are desperate to win that new contract you have worked
so hard to get. You may have complete confidence in your abilities as a
method of self insurance but what about those unforeseen problems that
your testing procedures did not find or those issues which you simply did
not consider. There has been a lot of discussion about the "year 2000 bug"
but have you checked your contractual documentation to see whether you
would be liable to fix such a fault. Does your software maintenance agreement
exclude that problem from what will be normally included in the maintenance
fee. As a customer dealing with a software developer, have you considered
the liability of the developer for loss and damage caused by faults in
the software. Is your developer insured? If the developer is not required
to have insurance, you may experience difficulty enforcing an award for
damages. Damages can arise from unusual events such as the failure of the
Art Centre's prop control system which released a 800 kg backdrop being
used for the opera Aida at the wrong time - how much is an Opera Singer
worth?, or the breach of the Scotland Yard telephone system which allowed
$1.29 million worth of international calls to be made by hackers, or the
$48.06 million accounting error allegedly made by software used by Franklins
Supermarkets Chain following an upgrade of its computer system. The
contract may be important, but could you afford the consequences if the
development goes wrong?
Contents
Contract negotiations
in Cyberspace
We are all familiar with concepts of receiving
a written contract and signing it as a method of acceptance, or ordering
a product by telephone and paying for it by quoting your credit card number
but an increasing number of contracts are involving electronic data interchange
in the negotiation and/or acceptance stages. When there is little or no
person to person contact, it is easy for misunderstandings to arise as
to what is being offered by a contract. The speed at which documents can
be altered and delivered by way of electronic negotiations can result in
the contract being rushed to completion. Consider also where the contract
is deemed to have been made and what laws will be governing the parties.
It is important to treat contractual negotiations with care, regardless
of the mode of delivery of documentation, as once a contract is accepted,
it may be difficult to escape your obligations.
Contents
Should you be expected
to know if an imported good infringes an Australian copyright?
If you are importing goods into Australia,
you should take undertake an investigation to determine whether the items
being imported would have infringed an Australian copyright, had they been
manufactured in Australia by the importer. In
Polygram Records v Raben Footware, the Federal Court found that the directors
of a company importing CD recordings of musical performances knew from previous experience
that copyright exists in a sound recording. Despite the fact that they imported
the CDs from a well known company and that it was claimed that Raben were
unaware that this company did not hold a licence to distribute the sound
recordings in Australia, it was found that Raben had flagrantly infringed
Polygram's copyright. Conversion damages of $5 per CD, $15,000 additional
damages and costs were awarded against Raben. Do you have a company
policy to guard against authorising imports which infringe copyright in
Australia?
Contents
Do you use music
in developing multimedia products or advertising?
If you record an adaptation of an existing
work, you may be subject to, amongst other things, s55(2) of the copyright
act which states that the adaptation must not debase the original work.
The Court has taken a fairly liberal interpretation of what would be considered
as a work which debases another. In
Schott Musik International GMBH & Co & Ors v Colossal Records of Australia
Pty Ltd & Ors it was claimed the a "techno" dance adaptation
debased the original classical music piece ("Carmina Burana") it was
based upon. In his comments, the judge stated that the Courts had to
be cautious in judging artistic merit, taste, appreciation and value
and so needed to adopt a broad approach in analysing whether an adaptation
debased the original work and found that work did not debase the original.
When adapting music you should always be careful of a copyright infringement.
Contents
Does your computer
program produce forms similar to those produced by a similar program?
In Andrew Cash and Co Investments v John
Porter & Ors a computer program had been developed to produce the
forms required by a pawn broker and to maintain the required records electronically
by Andrew Cash & Co's principal, Mr Doyle, a pawn broker. Porter, also
a pawn broker, approached Doyle to make preliminary inquiries about the
computer program. Having been given a demonstration and an example of the
pledge ticket produced, Doyle approached a computer programmer with the
view to writing a new program which would produce a similar ticket. Andrew
Cash & Co claims that Porter infringed its copyright in the ticket.
The question of whether or not there has been a copyright infringement
is yet to be decided, however, the Court has ordered that in the interim
that Porter be restrained from using his version of the tickets and from
authorising the printing of copies of the ticket.
In making this decision, the Court acknowledged
that Porter would be inconvenienced. What would you do if your business
was "put on hold" until such a time that any such litigation was finalised?
Contents
Do you do business
on the internet; beware of foreign laws!
Georgia Tech Lorraine which is the European
platform of the American Georgia Institution of Technology is being sued
by the French-Defence Association because its home page is only presented
in English. A 1994 law requires that public communications such as advertising
and restaurant menus must be in French and if they are also translated,
it must be into more than one language. It is also required that goods
and services be offered in French in addition to any other language used.
Contents
This article is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice, readers should
make their own enquires and seek appropriate legal advice.
Publications | Home | ©
White SW Computer Law 2004.
All Rights Reserved. | Page last revised 25 April 2004