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


nlnov04

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
nlnov04 [2011/02/14 18:35]
127.0.0.1 external edit
nlnov04 [2017/07/30 18:03] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== White SW Computer Law Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Newsletter November 2004 ====== ====== White SW Computer Law Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Newsletter November 2004 ======
-===== DEVELOPING SIMILAR PROGRAMS FOR COMPETITORS ​=====+===== Developing Similar programs for competitors ​=====
 Whether or not a software developer is free to develop a software program for a client that is similar to a program which was previously developed by them for another client is determined by issues such as (a) the contractual obligations owed to the original client, (b) who is the copyright owner of the source code (including library code) and (c) whether the original program was written using confidential information supplied by the original client. Whether or not a software developer is free to develop a software program for a client that is similar to a program which was previously developed by them for another client is determined by issues such as (a) the contractual obligations owed to the original client, (b) who is the copyright owner of the source code (including library code) and (c) whether the original program was written using confidential information supplied by the original client.
  
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 There are two key points to consider from this judgment. The first is before commencing legal proceedings it is very important to be able to confirm whether or not there is in fact any infringement of your intellectual property rights. Further, disputes such as this one may be avoided if there is a clear written assignment of intellectual property coupled with a lawful restraint of trade which prevents the sub-contractor or its related entities from supplying similar services to the customer'​s competitors. There are two key points to consider from this judgment. The first is before commencing legal proceedings it is very important to be able to confirm whether or not there is in fact any infringement of your intellectual property rights. Further, disputes such as this one may be avoided if there is a clear written assignment of intellectual property coupled with a lawful restraint of trade which prevents the sub-contractor or its related entities from supplying similar services to the customer'​s competitors.
- 
-This article 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. 
  

  © 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