NewLeaf - Case Study

Multiple laws in this case cover intellectual Property rights, copyright laws, and patent laws in addition to the contracts between Paul and NewLeaf, as well the contract between NewLeaf and Sofa Barn. To fully understand this case we have to address those issues.

To start with Copyright law for software, with regards to WIPO copyright treaty, which applies to member countries, Computer programs in their original source code and compiled object code are covered by copyright, and by this treaty, copyrighted work is covered against reproduction (making copies), distribution either for profit or not, or making a derived work from the original creation which can be by upgrading the computer code. For the computer program to be copyrighted, it should be original; in this case is this work Paul’s original work, or is it NewLeaf’s? If it’s Paul’s, then he can copyright it, but if it’s NewLeaf’s, then they can copyright it. Tangible, in this case because it’s a computer program, is it expression of the idea originated by Paul or NewLeaf? In the case where qualified person wrote the program, definitely Paul is a qualified person as he was outsourced to do this task based on his knowledge and qualifications, and software ownership should be defined, but who really owns the software, this should be defined in the contract, was Paul contracted only for this task and by that most probably the contract will state that the program is owned by NewLeaf, or did Sofa Barn buy the software ownership or just a version of that software.

 With regards to patent laws, it differs between countries, in the US for example software patenting is forced while in European countries not all software are patentable and a middle law that applies to all or most of the countries is not easy to have. For that I would exclude this from analyzing the case, as it’s a vague area of discussion.

Having stated all that, if NewLeaf or Paul registered the application for copyright, it will be protected by the law against reproduction of packaged software. Assuming that all copyright elements favor Paul, then creating the packaged software out of the original application would be illegal, if proved that this is an update, but if NewLeaf used concepts from the software and developed new software the Paul has no right to claim ownership unless he could prove it is an updated version. In addition to that, another factor affect the case, “breach of confidence “, was the idea of the original software sourced by Sofa Barn or Paul? If the source of knowledge is Sofa Barn, then he cannot claim breach of confidence as the idea where Sofa Barn’s, but if the idea was his, and he developed the software based on his knowledge, then he can claim breach of confidence.

Contracts are the best method to clarify the fact in such case, copyright ownership can be defined, whether NewLeaf, Paul or Sofa Barn, and IPR should be clarified, and based on the contract the owner can sue against any breach of his own property.

References:

Adams, A.A. & McCrindle, R.J. (2008) Pandora’s box: Social and professional issues of the information age. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

 Burnett, R. (2006), ‘A software copyright case’ ITNOW Vol: 48 Issue: 1 ISSN: 1746-5702, 10.1093/itnow/bwi150, [Online], Available from: http://itnow.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/48/1/34.1.short

(Accessed 26 March 2011)

Geard, S. (2005), ‘Software Patents Time for a new book of Bounty?’ ITNOW, 47(3): 18 doi:10.1093/itnow/bwi050, [Online], Available from:

http://itnow.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/47/3/18.full.pdf+html (Accessed 26 March 2011)

Nasser, M. (2009) ‘Computer Software: Copyrights v. Patents’, [Online], Available from: http://www.heinonline.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/HOL/Page?page=37&handle=hein.journals%2Floyiphtj8&collection=journals

(Accessed 26 March 2011)

Trademark, AU (2011), ‘Introduction to The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)’, [Online], Available from: http://tm.ua/laws/int/Introduction%20to%20the%20WIPO%20Performances%20and%20Phonograms%20Treaty%20WPPT.pdf

(Accessed 26 March 2011)