Lawlines Volume 9 Issue 4 - eOASIS

LawLinesVol 9 . Issue 4 • December 2007Around Rajah & TannRound Up – 2007 InPerspectiveFeature ArticlesTo Withhold Or Not ToWithhold – That Is TheQuestionAll Abuzz About GamesCorporate SocialResponsibility UnderThe New IndonesianCompany LawCase BitesLegislation Bitesindemnifi cation of this settlement from its insurersunder the public liability provision of its insurancepolicy, which provided that the insurers will beliable at law for damages in respect of obstruction,loss of amenities, trespass, nuisance or any likecause. However, the Court held that the insurersneed not provide indemnifi cation as obstruction,loss of amenities etc are torts which require aninterest in the property affected. Since the railwaycompany, having no interest in the railway line, didnot have a claim in tort against Tesco (and was notcompensated on that basis), Tesco was not entitledto the indemnity under the public liability provisionof its insurance policy from the insurers.iTecGrant Of Royalties For CommissionedSoftwareIn Laurence Wrenn v Stephen Landamore (2007),the English High Court held that a computerprogrammer be granted royalties in systems hewas commissioned by another party to develop,even though no proper agreement regardingthe ownership of copyright in the works existedwhen the material was commissioned. This wasbecause, in the absence of an agreement, UKlaw provides that copyright rests with the author,although when material is commissioned there isan implied licence or, in some cases, an impliedtransfer of copyright to the commissioner. In thiscase, the Court ruled that there was an impliedlicence for Wrenn to use Landamore’s materialthough it stopped short of a full assignment ofcopyright to Wrenn. The Court found that it was notnecessary to imply an assignment of copyright tomake the arrangement commercially workable, butthat an exclusive licence could be implied, whichwould include access to the source code.page 37 of 44 pages | print | comments | close