White SW Computer Law
Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 Australia
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email: wcl@computerlaw.com.au Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


empip

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
empip [2013/06/14 15:31]
steve
empip [2017/07/30 18:02] (current)
Line 6: Line 6:
 In the matters of [[case_links#​Redrock Holdings P/L v Adam Hinkley & Ors|Redrock Holdings P/L v Adam Hinkley & Ors]] and [[case_links#​Hotline Communications and Ors v Adam Hinkley and Ors|Hotline Communications and Ors v Adam Hinkley and Ors]] the Court was asked to consider several issues including the ownership of copyright in library code which was allegedly written by Mr Hinkley before commencing employment with Redrock Holdings P/L ("​Redrock"​) and then allegedly substantially rewritten during his period of employment with Redrock. In the matters of [[case_links#​Redrock Holdings P/L v Adam Hinkley & Ors|Redrock Holdings P/L v Adam Hinkley & Ors]] and [[case_links#​Hotline Communications and Ors v Adam Hinkley and Ors|Hotline Communications and Ors v Adam Hinkley and Ors]] the Court was asked to consider several issues including the ownership of copyright in library code which was allegedly written by Mr Hinkley before commencing employment with Redrock Holdings P/L ("​Redrock"​) and then allegedly substantially rewritten during his period of employment with Redrock.
  
-The library code in dispute was used by Hinkley to develop a separate software program for one of Redrock'​s clients over several years. ​+The library code in dispute was used by Mr Hinkley to develop a separate software program for one of Redrock'​s clients over several years. ​
  
 Mr Hinkley resigned from Redrock whilst overseas allegedly on holiday in Canada where he had entered into negotiations with Hotline Communications P/L ( "​Hotline"​ ) to develop software similar to that which he had developed for Redrock. ​ Mr Hinkley resigned from Redrock whilst overseas allegedly on holiday in Canada where he had entered into negotiations with Hotline Communications P/L ( "​Hotline"​ ) to develop software similar to that which he had developed for Redrock. ​
Line 16: Line 16:
 Mr Hinkley did not dispute that Redrock owned the copyright in the new program developed during the course of his employment, but he maintained that Redrock was only licensed to use an object code version of the library code and was not the owner of the copyright, nor entitled to the source code for same.  Mr Hinkley did not dispute that Redrock owned the copyright in the new program developed during the course of his employment, but he maintained that Redrock was only licensed to use an object code version of the library code and was not the owner of the copyright, nor entitled to the source code for same. 
  
-The fact that new programs required the library code to run (and make changes) was, in the view of Mr Hinkley, not relevant. Hinkley also maintained the library code was written outside business hours.+The fact that new programs required the library code to run (and make changes) was, in the view of Mr Hinkley, not relevant. ​ 
 + 
 +Mr Hinkley also maintained the library code was written outside business hours.
  
 Redrock engaged expert witnesses to analyse the source code of both the library code and the new software program. ​ Redrock engaged expert witnesses to analyse the source code of both the library code and the new software program. ​
Line 24: Line 26:
 These conclusions were accepted by the Court. These conclusions were accepted by the Court.
  
-The Court held that the copyright in the qualitatively and quantitatively different library code was vested in Redrock by operation of law, having regard to the fact that it was produced by Hinkley in pursuance of the terms of his employment. ​+The Court held that the copyright in the qualitatively and quantitatively different library code was vested in Redrock by operation of law, having regard to the fact that it was produced by Mr Hinkley in pursuance of the terms of his employment. ​
  
-This being so, there is no requirement for there to be any transfer agreement or licence, either written or oral to transfer the copyright ownership in the library code from Hinkley to Redrock.+This being so, there is no requirement for there to be any transfer agreement or licence, either written or oral to transfer the copyright ownership in the library code from Mr Hinkley to Redrock.
  
 Had Mr Hinkley been considered to be a contractor, the situation would have been quite different. ​ Had Mr Hinkley been considered to be a contractor, the situation would have been quite different. ​

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au