Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(f) The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiff damages for hacking, making unauthorized use and altering the source code of the plaintiff in KEN_HFS software;
(g) The defendants be directed to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all CDs, hard disks or any other electronic storage media containing the infringing software with the tampered/hacked source code or unauthorised KEN_HFS software of the plaintiff;
(h) for costs.

10.The above reliefs were sought for against both the defendants on the averments and also the causes of action stated in the plaint. It would be fit and proper to reproduce the following averments in the plaint.

32.The defendants reverse engineered the plaintiff's software KEN_HFS and hacked the source code of the same. The defendants has altered/modified/inserted various external source codes into the plaintiff's original software and are involved in manufacture of tampered software by reverse engineering of plaintiff software thereby violating the terms and conditions on the agreement. The defendants developed a tampered software by lifting substantial portion of source code from plaintiff's original software and exploited it commercially. The plaintiff states that this unauthorised commercial exploitation of source code would amount to the copyright violation. The adaptation and modification of the source code as well as KEN_HFS software, ORACLE AFSU software by the plaintiff amounts to infringement of copyright, the exclusive rights vested in the plaintiff in the software developed and maintained by them.
....
45.The cause of action for the present suit arose at Chennai when the plaintiff and 1st defendant had entered into a Vendor's Agreement dated 30th January 2001 for providing license to the 1st defendant to use KEN_HFS software developed by the plaintiff, on 29th January 2003, 20th February 2004 and 4th March 2005, when the plaintiff and the 1st defendant has entered into subsequent Vendor's Agreement for providing license to the 1st defendant to use KEN_HFS Software, on 20th March 2006, when an Annual Maintenance Contract-Application Software was entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant for maintenance of the application software developed by the plaintiff and licensed to the 1st defendant, which was subsequently renewed on 7th March 2007 and 20th March 2008, which was valid till 31st March 2009; during October 2008, when the plaintiff became aware that the 1st defendant has hacked/tampered with the source code of the software 'KEN_HFS' developed by the plaintiff and has used the pirated software in a number of systems more than that has been authorised/licensed; on various dates when the same was brought to the knowledge of the 1st defendant, which the 1st defendant has failed to remedy and subsequently when the defendants continues to commit acts of infringement of copyright. The continuous use of the pirated source code/software by the defendants being a recurring one, it continues to accrue everyday de die in diem until the defendants are restrained permanently from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and from tampering with the source code of the plaintiff's original 'KEN_HFS' software."
"The continuous use of the pirated source code/software by the defendants being a recurring one, it continues to accrue everyday de die in diem until the defendants are restrained permanently from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and from tampering with the source code of the plaintiff's original 'KEN_HFS' software."

12.Another contention that though number of documents were listed, no one was related to the second defendant cannot be accepted since the documents including the exchange of notices, would speak of the infringement of the copyrights by the defendants, and the plaintiff came to know from the prima facie opinion given by the expert from the IIT, Bombay. It remains to be stated that a reading of the relief clause would clearly indicate that all the reliefs sought for were against the defendants jointly and severally. Hence the contentions put forth by the respondents' side in this regard are liable to be rejected.