|
|
|
 论文编号：
org200806160910481316 |
| 论文属性：
assignment guidelines |
| 论文语言：English |
| 论文国家：U.K. |
| 登出日期： 2008-06-16 |
| 字数： 2244 |
| 源程序：
无 |
| 价格：
免费论文 |
| 参考相关附件： |
|
|
| 论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索：Intellectual Property legal liability
liability Information Location Tools |
changed employment and developed a competing product, predominantly based upon his earlier work. The judge considered an American case Computer Associates v. Altai for guidance.
In the US case, the US judge adopted a Three Stage test for assessing whether copyright had been violated since reverse engineering/decompilation had been used. The 3 stage US test is the Abstraction/Filtration/Comparison test.
The judge asked the following questions - What was the original concept? Could you subdivide the program into chunks? Is it produced in the same way as the original? What parts of the program are copyrighted and which are not? Has copying occurred? Is the copying of a substantial proportion?
The British court did not adopt these tests, and preferred a simpler one of sufficient similarity coupled with access to the original work. Both programs contained the same errors although the new program was more user friendly. Therefore there was a breach of copyright law since the program had been ‘over-borrowed.’
In Richardson Ltd. v. Flanders and Chemtec the program was designed to help chemists stocktake and produce printed labels with dosage instructions. Flanders played a significant part in the development of the program. He left and IBM computers began to dominate the market. Richardson Computers and Flanders discussed a new IBM compatible program but Richardson decided not to proceed. Chemtec approached Flanders who then developed an IBM compatible英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 package called Pharm-assist. Both programs did the same thing, but as they were written in different languages had no significant literal similarities. It was held that there was a limited infringement in the copyright of non-literal elements. This case has been criticised for lack of a proper filtration exercise and for essentially making trivial matters copyrightable and perhaps creating a restraint of trade.
In Total Information Ltd v Daman Ltd the defender successfully obtained that company’s client list and all rights in the software, after the liquidation of a software company. The pursuers wrote to the former clients and offered a software maintenance service and to replace certain of the programs. It was held that the data that was reproduced was not a substantial part of the program, that the link could not be regarded as an original work in the same way as a collective presentation of a literary or artistic work by diverse authors…and that where there was only one way of expressing an idea, the idea and the expression merged and were not the subject of copyright.
In the USA, the Supreme Court ruling in Lotus Development Corp. v Borland Int’l Inc found that Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet commands, menus and sub-menus were not protectable under the US Copyright Act 1976 as this was an attempt to copyright a method of operation.
In the case of Cantor Fitzgerald Int’l v. Tradition UK the recently dismissed managing director of the plaintiffs
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
| 第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 第5页 第6页 第7页 第8页 第9页 第10页 第11页 第12页 第13页 第14页 第15页 第16页 |
|
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
