Back
HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ONESTOP SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (M) SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MASTERITEC SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: D5(Ip)-22-1828-2008]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court granted the plaintiff’s application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from infringing the copyright in the QnE Software (!) .
The plaintiff’s claims include copyright infringement of the software, breach of confidentiality obligations, breach of employment agreements, and breach of fiduciary duties by certain defendants (!) (!) .
The court outlined the principles for granting an interlocutory injunction, emphasizing the need to establish serious issues to be tried, the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, and that the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction (!) (!) .
The QnE Software is a specially designed accounting program, with protected features including source codes, structural and design elements, and the user interface (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff demonstrated prima facie proof of ownership and copyright subsistence in the software, supported by affidavits and evidence of original publication and development (!) (!) .
The similarities between the infringing software and the plaintiff’s software, coupled with the defendant’s access to source codes, suggest a strong case of copyright infringement (!) (!) .
The defendants failed to adequately explain the similarities, and their attempts to justify common features were rebutted, indicating a high likelihood of copying (!) .
The court found serious issues regarding the breach of confidentiality, especially given the defendants’ access to proprietary information, trade secrets, and the use of confidential data after employment termination (!) (!) (!) .
The defendants did not sufficiently rebut the assertion that they misappropriated proprietary information, and their conduct raised substantial questions for trial (!) .
The defendants’ failure to challenge the ownership rights and the confidentiality of the proprietary information, along with the continued use of such information, strengthened the case against them (!) .
The court considered damages to be an inadequate remedy due to the potential for irreparable harm, loss of goodwill, and the difficulty in quantifying damages, especially given the ongoing infringement (!) (!) .
The balance of convenience favors the plaintiff because of the significant investment, development, and reputation associated with the QnE Software, and the ongoing infringement threatens their business viability (!) (!) .
The court noted that the defendants’ ability to pay damages is uncertain, and they have continued infringing activities despite warnings, which justifies the injunction (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the defendants’ request for discovery of source codes at this stage, citing that such production is premature and that the issue of actual copying is better suited for full trial and expert analysis (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the primary evidence of infringement at this stage is the objective similarities and the defendant’s access to the software, rather than detailed source code analysis (!) (!) .
An expert review of source codes is recognized as a necessary step during the full trial, but not required at the interlocutory stage, to avoid delay and unnecessary prejudice (!) .
The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting proprietary rights, confidential information, and the overall integrity of the plaintiff’s intellectual property during the legal proceedings.
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 3)
1. Enclosure 3 is an application by the Plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the Defendants from infringing the 2nd Plaintiff's copyright in the QnE Software.
2. The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants are as follows:-
(a) infringement of the 2nd Plaintiff's copyright in the QnE Software;
(b) breach of duty of confidentiality to the Plaintiffs;
(c) breach of the employment agreement by the 2nd Defendant;
(d) breach of fiduciary duty by the 3rd Defendant.
3. The principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction were laid down by Lord Diplock in the House of Lords in the case of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. To summarise those principles, the party seeking the injunction must establish the followings:-
(a) there are serious issues to be tried;
(b) damages will not be an adequate compensation; and
(c) balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.
The above principles have been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Keet Gerald Francis v. Mohd. Noor @ Harun bin Abdullah & 2 Ors., [1995] 1 MLJ 193 - 2 AMR 337 . The Plaintiff must satisfy the Court that its claims are not frivolous or vexatious.
Infringement of the 2nd Plaintiff's Copyright in the QnE Software
4. The Plaintiff's QnE Software is an accounting software specially designed for use by a person with minimal accounting background. The objective of the QnE Software is to bypass the in depth knowledge required to manage the financial affairs of a business and the day to day financial administration and reporting of a business. In the QnE Software, the Plaintiff's assert the following features which are protected under copyright:-
(a) the computer program comprising the literal elements being the source codes;
(b) the computer program comprising the non-literal elements being the structure, modularity, architecture and design features of the QnE Software; and
(c) the user interface of the program (what appears on the screen display when the program is run).
5. Computer program is protected as a literary work under the Copyright Act 1987 . Under Section 3 of the Copyright Act 1987 , "literary work" includes "computer program". The case of Creative Propose Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Integrated Trans corp Sdn Bhd & Ors. , [1997] 2 MLJ 429 (at page 437) affirms that a computer program is a literary work. It comprises source codes which are literary works. A computer program also comprises non-literal elements which are protected under the law.
6. The English cases are instructive on the issue of copyright protection and infringement of computer programs as our laws are similar. In the English case of Ibcos Computers v. Barclays Mercantile [1994] FSR 275, the High Court held that copyright protection extends to both the source codes of a computer program as well as the underlying structure of a computer program. In Ibcos Computer s, Jacob J held at page 302 that:-
"I thoroughly agree with what Ferris J (in the John Richardson case) want on to say: "Consideration is not restricted to the text of the code ..." That must be right: most literary copyright works involve both literal matters (the exact words of a novel or a computer program) and varying levels of abstraction (plot, more or less details of a novel, general structure of a computer program)."
"I therefore think it right to have regard in this case not only to what Mr Turner (the Plaintiffs' expert) called 'literal similarities' but also to what he called 'program structure' and 'design features'."
7. In respect of the user interface and the design of screen display of a computer program, they are protected as "artistic works" under our Copyright Act 1987 . Section 3 of the Act defines "artistic work" as including "a graphic work, photograph, irrespective of the artistic quality."
8. In the present case the Plaintiff has shown prima facie proof of ownership and subsistence of copyright. The Plaintiffs' affirmed in paragraph 13 of the Plaintiffs' First Affid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
