The SpicyIP team noticed the Ideafarms-Continental dispute, how despite the unathorised use of Ideafarms’ product by German company Continental AG the German court ruled in favor of Continental AG. The SpicyIP team decided to write about it and bring it to notice timed with Indo-German bilateral talks held in Germany, 9-11 May 2012.
Excerpts from the original article have been covered here for your views. (Click to read the full article) –
Since 2007, Continental had been using a software framework of Ideafarms, named InDExT, a general-purpose / generic software framework for storing, retrieving and approving documents and managing business processes through a proprietary Visual Navigation system. This software had been customised for Continental as QMD, Quality Management Documentation by Ideafarms for a separate customization fee and installed in the Germany-based servers of Continental under a click-wrap license. The licence agreement was accepted by Continental and was also available for viewing through the software interface itself.In 2010, when Continental signed the aforesaid termination agreement, it was liable to pay the license fee for the said software for the year 2010. …
… The matter, however, proceeded to be heard the next day, wherein the Court acted in a manner that did not conform with the idea of fairness or neutrality. Without allowing a trial, it rejected Ideafarms’ counter claim and instead of allowing any argument on Ideafarms’ part as to what might constitute a valid licence/transfer fee, it summarily awarded Continental the rights to the software. …
… Overall, even setting aside the procedural irregularities that the German judge might or might not have indulged in, the decision prima facie appears to contain several laches, such as how could Continental have been awarded the software rights without a trial, when it had never claimed ownership, nor had disputed Ideafarms’ copyright over the same. Even the licensing issue was not settled by the Court.
Read the complete article here.
The post attracted considerable attention and received a string of comments from readers starting a debate.
We would also like to know what do you think about the judgement. Share you views in the comments below.