Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi)MIFR 2009 (1) 0304 (ASTOR TECHNOLOGIES AND OTHERS V. L.B.THIAGARAJAN).
(vii)

8.This Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

9.As could be seen above, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.270 of 2009 for the following reliefs:

(a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly in any manner copying, reproducing, reverse engineering, adapting, using, altering tampering with or hacking into the original source code in part or full of the plaintiff's housing finance software KEN_HFS thereby amounting to infringement of copyright in the plaintiff's housing finance software KEN_HFS or in any other manner whatsoever;
....
12.The plaintiff has created various versions of the housing finance software KEN_HFS on different platforms over the years.....
....The complete access of KEN_HFS was given to the 2nd defendant by 1st defendant on servers which were in fact controlled by the 2nd defendant. Upon becoming aware of such infringement and tampering of source code by the first defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff bonafide sought expert opinion from one of the foremost technical institutions in the country, the reputed Indian Institute of Technology, IIT Bombay. The expert report from the Computer Science and Engineering Dept IIT Bombay, confirmed the outright infringement by the 1st defendant by tampering with KEN_HFS source code, insertion of external source code, alterations tampering of schema and copying and reverse engineering of KEN_HFS. Such infringement was obvious from the conspicuous similarity between source code items column names, objects, etc occurring in the plaintiff's proprietary source code amounting to several thousand instances of copying.
15.The 1st defendant in order to escape from the legal liability has gone to the extent of saying that the copyright of KEN_HFS software vest with the defendant itself which is evident by its e-mail dated December 2008......
....
17.The 1st defendant in order to escape from legal liability for obvious infringement has continuously denied access to the plaintiff for the various bonafide purposes including auditing, error/bug resolution, maintenance, upgradation, etc. These actions of the 1st defendant is obvious proof of their intention to hide the acts of infringement of reverse engineering and hacking into the plaintiff's software, which would be discovered very obviously if plaintiff were provided access bonafidely as per the relationship and agreement between the parties.....
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.