The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main had to decide on how the copyright is such protection of a computer program on the required level of creativity through the scope. Also, a "spy function" was discussed.
In the proceedings before the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court case were fighting a software maker and a seller on numerous issues of distribution of an application for managing corporate data. It was for example about whether the level of creativity and thus the copyright protection of the program are ever given if decompilation is allowed and whether the reseller could publish the product in the present way further - against the background, which rights he had.
Rights: yes or no?
Specifically, the reseller had offered a demo version of the software on the Internet to the test, even though he had no right to use the product from the perspective of OLGs. The seller had not comprehensible argued for the judge that a company was formed, which he had admitted this. The judge, however, found that the cooperation on the part of the manufacturer terminated or the transfer of rights for the disputed period was not made.
Release: yes or no?
Therefore, the reseller should not have to publish the software or make it available. The defendant seller felt a publicly available product does not because "the software in sealed-off environment" was operated. "Making available", as the Court of Appeal, "but is only expected, will be opened in the appropriate, protected work, the third of the access". The demo version that offered the seller on its website and its YouTube presence would, potential customers to test the possibility of using already allows, namely working with the user interface.
Despite the fact that no source has been disclosed, has been the first instance, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, "rightly pointed out that the defendant the exclusive right of the applicant [Note. d. Talk .: The software manufacturer] violated "He continued:". The requirement for making available drop of the protected work on a server is available to the public upstream act [...] ".
Level of creativity achieved: yes or no?
The fact that the software is protected by what the resellers had also been questioned, it was clear to the judges. The objection from the seller that "the performance results “: The computer program] there was a significant proportion of inputs Third, since modules have been used by other manufacturers, "the judge did not apply. In order to prove - which incidentally had been the responsibility of the reseller that the program does not have the necessary for the protection of originality, rich such "standard speech" is not enough. From the judgment: "Description and graphic representation according to which the plaintiff is a complex software developed over a long period with a considerable market value."
Basically, according to copyright law that no particular creative design height to protect a computer program is necessary. Rather, the individual intellectual creation of the Creator is the focus. Only simple, routine services, which would accomplish similar every programmer are therefore excluded from protection.
Decompile: allowed or not allowed?
Last but not least was discussed in the context of the dispute in court the question whether the reseller could reverse translate the machine code in the program code also successfully completed the sale of the software. The reseller had here argued that no decompilation had taken place, "rather the users of the software have a in terms of data protection worth protecting interest in the removal of spy function" had. Even if there really were such a "spy action", "does not justify the access of the defendant on the stand on the exclusive right of use of the applicant Software, the part of the defendant not to new customers should have been passed on ", so the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment