Commissioned software ownership case
The IPKat has learnt from Out-Law.com of a decision that doesn’t yet seem to have made it to BAILII.
It concerns a dispute between Stephen Landamore, a programmer, and Laurence Wrenn, who runs a business selling interfaces for cars and audio equipment. Wrenn commissioned Landamore to write the software for those interfaces, but no express agreement was made concerning the ownership of the
copyright in the work. The pair fell out, and a court case ensued.
Robert Englehart QC, sitting as a deputy judge, found that Wrenn was entitled to an implied exclusive licence, but not the assignment of copyright that he sought. He also awarded Landamore royalties of just over £45k.
The IPKat reckons that from the looks of it, this is a relatively unexceptional case. However, he’d be interested to know on what grounds the deputy judge justified the granting of a licence that was exclusive.
It concerns a dispute between Stephen Landamore, a programmer, and Laurence Wrenn, who runs a business selling interfaces for cars and audio equipment. Wrenn commissioned Landamore to write the software for those interfaces, but no express agreement was made concerning the ownership of the
copyright in the work. The pair fell out, and a court case ensued.Robert Englehart QC, sitting as a deputy judge, found that Wrenn was entitled to an implied exclusive licence, but not the assignment of copyright that he sought. He also awarded Landamore royalties of just over £45k.
The IPKat reckons that from the looks of it, this is a relatively unexceptional case. However, he’d be interested to know on what grounds the deputy judge justified the granting of a licence that was exclusive.