Posts Tagged ‘IT’

Public sector cuts – rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

GP groups have branded NHS Direct’s plans to decentralise by having at least 100 of its staff working from home by March 2011 as “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic” given the IT infrastructure investment required.

Currently, taxpayers are broadly accepting of cuts however, if planned savings do not materialise because costs are being shifted rather than cut, it is unlikely that this tolerance will continue.

It is essential that cuts are strategically planned with a view to achieving the planned efficiencies subject to the outcome of the comprehensive spending review due in the Autumn. A failure to do this could see the ‘deckchairs’ go down with the ship!

Mark Blois

Posted by Laura Hughes
0115 976 6582
lhughes@brownejacobson.com

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

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government bodies, NHS, Public Sector | No Comments »

Tory Technology Treaty

Friday, March 19th, 2010

The campaigning has started by all the major parties, and anything said at this stage before an election is to be taken with a pinch of salt, but there are likely to be a fair few people whose attention might have been caught by the Conservative Technology Manifesto not least, anyone involved in public sector IT projects (as supplier or customer) any vendors of open source software, makers of smart meters and/or with an interest in data protection.

The document is a short one and, as with any pre-election material, has some positive suggestions in generic terms – an end to wasteful IT projects, a “right to data” policy and greater openness in most areas of public sector life, including publishing online all spending over £500 by local governments.

What might surprise some IT companies that contract with the public sector at the moment however, whatever their political persuasion, is the suggestion that contracts with local authorities that exceed certain thresholds (£500 for local authorities, £25,000 for central government and Quangos) will also be published “in full” – including in particular all performance indicators, break clauses and penalty measures. It’s a brave step and one that might highlight contracts that are overly favourable to suppliers and where the public sector is being unfairly penalised.

On the other hand – from the supplier’s perspective this raises issues of its own – “if you (large IT supplier) can provide those services and meet those service levels for that cost for the public sector, then why not for me, your prospective private sector customer?” There is a risk that too much transparency could mean public sector customers no longer get a better deal than the market.

And what about contracts provided by named “Key personnel” – will these individuals earn a celebrity of their own through contracts published online, or will data protection concerns override requirements in future legislation? Certainly the 35,000 most senior civil servants whose salaries are also required to be published online may have something to say if they can be identified from this information.

However this manifesto plays out, if, as currently predicted the conservatives are likely to be the next government, there are likely to be a few lively debates with the Office of the Information Commissioner before this manifesto becomes law.

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)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Data Protection, IT Contracts, Public Sector | 1 Comment »

This software's faulty – what can I get from the seller?

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

It’s a query often raised by clients. A recent case has highlighted that it might well be more than previously thought.

Traditionally a party suing for breach of contract can expect to recover losses that result directly from a breach, but not losses that are “indirect” – as these are considered too remote or unforseeable. Typically a supplier will exclude indirect losses and will also exclude losses such as loss of profits, loss of revenue and similar losses. In a recent case however there was an interesting decision as to what a supplier could claim, even where indirect losses and loss of revenue is excluded. This included:

  • Increased payments to suppliers, as a result of using the faulty software
  • Additional costs of borrowing, made necessary by the increased payments to suppliers;
  • The cost of chasing debts that were not due (but which the faulty software suggested were due);
  • The cost of ex-gratia payments made to customers to compensate for poor service – (i.e. payments that the customer was not obliged to, but chose to pay to protect its reputation); and
  • Even the cost of stationery used to write to its customers to explain the problems caused by the faulty software

None were excluded by the typical “loss of profits” exclusion, nor by excluding indirect losses. For software suppliers it’s a potential wake up call that errors and delays in projects can lead to eye-watering amounts of damages – something that it is worth taking the time to protect against when working through the small print of their agreements.

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)

Tags: ,
Posted in Commercial contracts, IT Contracts | No Comments »

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)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Intellectual Property, IT Contracts | No Comments »