Archive for February, 2010

If you’ve infringed your own copyright – should you sue?

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Here’s an idea for a game:  Move a marble-like ball around a computer screen by continually placing train tracks in front of it 

Here’s another one:  Having developed the above programme, move the rights in it from you to your company and then seek to move it back again using the courts and the law of copyright infringement. 

The first idea might seem a decent one.  The second idea is a truly terrible and expensive one and one that developers should avoid at all costs as this case shows.

A freelance developer developed his game concept (called either Tracktrix, or later Train Trax) before he joined Circle Studios as a games developer.  Without telling others in the company that he had developed this concept himself he passed on this concept and encouraged Circle Studios to exploit it. 

Sadly this did not lead to commercial success and Circle Studios went into administration.  Afterwards the developer sought to take back the concept and to do this he claimed, amongst other things – copyright infringement, alleging that Circle Studios had copied the game from him as a freelance developer.  After all he should know…he (as an employee of Circle) had copied it! 

Unsurprisingly perhaps the games developer was unsuccessful.  As the developer had not disclosed where the idea came from, there was no reason for the employer to believe that the concept was not created in the course of his employment.   Any infringement was caused by the developer.  The copyright claim failed, as did a related breach of confidence claim, with the judge lamenting that the action reached the court in the first place.  

The lesson – be clear where ideas come from as an employee and if you developed something yourself that you later want to use in your employment, discuss assignment or a licence with your employer.  If it’s too late to do this, avoid litigation if you can, as taking that track without advice is likely to mean losing your claim, as well as your marbles.

Richard Nicholas

Posted by Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Parent Power

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

The Government has announced plans to allow parents to vote to change a school’s leadership where there is significant dissatisfaction locally. In line with Labour’s Accredited Schools Group/Provider initiative, parents would be able to choose from a list of accredited organisations to take over running the school. Gordon Brown promised parents “a strong voice and real power”.

Comparisons with the Conservative’s education policy – they want to make it easier for parents to set up new schools – will no doubt be rife. Ed Balls himself was quick to argue that while the Tory policy requires “busy working parents” to set up their own schools if they are not happy with their local state school, the Government’s proposals enable parents to “demand change and get a new and quality-guaranteed provider”.

It seems to be becoming rather trendy for political parties to drop the “P” word into their education manifestos. It will be interesting to see whether this dedication to parent power will run out of steam following the General Election.

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Be careful where you doodle

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Of the habits I’ve learned over the years advising on commercial contracts, one of the most irritating is perhaps that I do not now feel prepared to read anything at all (documents, contracts, covering emails) without a pen in my hand ready to underline important bits of it or write next to it. I know that I’m not alone in this.

In the relatively measured world of contract negotiation, where an apparently wildly aggressive spew of words annotating text along the lines of “How much?” “when?” “Why would we agree this?” or simply “No!” – much of which allows me to pick up the phone and have a much more measured conversation with the client & or will lead me to making similar points to the other side as part of a negotiation.

In the context of a dispute however these sorts of annotations could be much more problematic as it is less clear when they will be priviledged (i.e. prevented from being disclosed to the other side or as evidence). A recent case however suggests that these sorts of annotations will not always be privileged, unless they clearly give a clue as to the advice being offered by a lawyer to his/her client. It might well be acceptable therefore for a court to allow a document such as a contract which is partly underlined as evidence in the event of a dispute, even though it might highlight the areas that the other side consider significant and those that it does not.

Comments made by non-lawyers (“Oooops – shouldn’t have done that!” – “we’re stuffed!” etc) are not generally privileged, so can be disclosed and may well be of interest to the other side. The conclusion seems to be obvious – when dealing with a dispute, keep the originals clean, keep the legal advice separate and make sure that this advice remains privileged.

If you must annotate, annotate copies, be aware of the danger you might have to disclose that copy – oh and do leave annotations at work. Newspapers and novels are probably best left unannotated – particularly if they need to go back to the library…

Richard Nicholas

Posted by Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Sex Education – has the Government let faith schools off the hook?

Friday, February 19th, 2010

A change to the Children Schools and Families Bill has led to accusations that the Government has departed from its commitment to giving all children the right to quality sex and relationship education.

From 2011, schools will be required to teach pupils from the age of 7 about relationships, including same sex relationships, as part of Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education. However, the recent amendment will allow faith schools to teach PSHE in a way that reflects the school’s religious character.

The DCSF argues that this is not an opt-out provision for faith schools but secular groups are adamant that the change will encourage discriminatory teachings. The British Humanist Association said “the amendment effectively gives licence to faith schools to teach sex and relationships education in ways that are homophobic and gender discriminatory”.

Should schools’ rights to promote the values of their faith in lessons override children’s rights to receive balanced information on any subject from an early age?

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Global recall of Toyota's Prius

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Toyota’s high profile product recall woes continued this week with the news of the global recall of their flagship Prius hybrid model. The problem is apparently a software glitch, which delays braking under certain conditions. This follows hot on the heels of an entirely separate product recall for faults with the accelerator “sticking” on certain other Toyota models.

From a legal point of view, if vehicles were not recalled and fixed then Toyota would be more likely to face prosecution by the authorities for selling unsafe goods, and they could still face a wealth of civil claims due to injuries caused to the general public. It has also been suggested that Toyota drivers could be committing an offence of dangerous driving, if they ignore the recall notice and continue to drive their vehicles.

Clearly global recalls will be a logistical nightmare, and damage consumer confidence in the Toyota brand – particularly now that it has been reported that there is a separate safety defect in another Toyota model.

It is for this reason that brand owners always need to be prepared to take swift and decisive action in the event of a reported safety defect. Toyota have issued recall notices, they have made a public apology for the problems, they have used YouTube to disseminate information about the accelerator issue, and they have launched a hotline for consumers to call if they are concerned. However, for some people, Toyota could be said to have taken too long to decide on recalls globally. Toyota’s hotline has also been overloaded with calls.

Could better handling of the recall have avoided falling share prices?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Commercial Interpretation of IP Indemnity Clause but Drafters Beware!

Friday, February 12th, 2010

In the recent case of  The Codemasters Software Co. Limited v Automobile Club De L’Ouest (“ACO”), the High Court adopted a commercial approach to interpretation of an IP indemnity in favour of Codemasters. 

ACO had warranted under a licence agreement with Codemasters that the use by Codemasters of car manufacturers’ names, trade marks and car designs would not infringe any IP rights anywhere in the world. However, when Codemasters incorporated certain materials into its computer game, car manufacturers claimed that ACO did not have the rights to grant such licences. Codemasters sought to rely on an indemnity in the licence agreement with ACO under which ACO agreed to indemnify Codemasters against claims by third parties. ACO argued that the claims made by the car manufacturers were not claims of ‘breaches of warranty’ and were not therefore covered by the indemnity. 

The Court held that there are good reasons why parties agree to indemnities against third party infringement claims: generally the licensor of intellectual property rights is in a better position to ascertain whether the exploitation will infringe third party IP rights.  Accordingly, the Court ruled in favour of Codemasters.

This has got to be the right interpretation and will be reassuring to licensees. However, licensees must ensure that licensor warranties and indemnities are clear and unambiguous and not open to interpretation. 

Sara McNeill

Posted by Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

A new phase for international students

Monday, February 1st, 2010

In March 2009, the government over-hauled the way students from outside the EEA and Switzerland gain entry to study in the UK.  Further to our article in Issue 9 of Education Update, Tier 4 management system: are partnership agreements the answer? the Home Office have announced that phase 4 of this new schemewill go live on the 22nd February. 

Once the fourth phase commences, visa letters will be obsolete and schools who sponsor international students will have to use the sponsorship management system to issue confirmation of acceptance to study.

The new streamlined scheme aims to stop fraudulent applications by students and institutions – with the fees from international students generating £2.5 billion a year there has been huge scope for abuse. 

With much emphasis placed on partnership working in the education sector should schools collaborate and share the administrative burden by joining forces?  This will mean students only need one visa and school will share the administration and costs.  On the other hand, it may lead to issues if one institution omits to fulfil their obligations or fails in their duties meaning both institutions would be held accountable given the singular nature of the application. 

Time will tell whether or not this more onerous system to tighten security will force schools to collaborate given the inevitable issues the scheme will throw their way.

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)