Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that as per practice, after the improvement/modification of the software, the plaintiff used the source code of its software in the new versions. Hence, the defendant No.1 after the expiry of five years is not entitled to reproduce Version 1.03 in material form.

17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that all earlier understandings and agreements between the parties stood vitiated by their act of entering into the fresh agreement. The plaintiff has relied upon clause 20 of the agreement in order to buttress this argument.

18. The counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that the defendant No.1 has provided the source code of version 1.03 of the software to the defendant No.3. Therefore, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff as the defendant no. 1‟s act amounts to infringement of copyright claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff became aware that defendant no. 1 was planning to utilize the same software in Africa, and the same would be illegal, considering that the assignment was valid for only 5 years and that too only in the territory of India. The said utilization of Version 1.03 outside India would be in breach of Section 19 (6) of the Copyright Act. Lastly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has admitted that the copyright of all the works of versions 1.03 to 1.08 have been assigned to the defendant No.1 and the versions 1.04 to 1.08 are still valid as per the agreement between the parties and the said agreement continues without any termination between the plaintiff and defendant No.1.

24. The contention of defendant no. 1 is that as per the plaintiff‟s own admission, the defendant no. 1 enjoys copyright in Versions 1.04 to 1.08 of the software and in such case, defendant no. 1 would logically enjoy copyright in the source code contained in all these versions also.

25. A submission made by defendant no. 1 is that Version 1.03 of the software is not in use by it as Version 2.00 is being used and the source code of the same was handed over by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 on 6th, 19th and 20th August, 2009. Defendant no. 1 has then pointed out several alleged admissions on the plaintiff‟s part in the plaint.