Software ownership - Essay Example

Paraphrasing Paraphrasing An employee of Cyprotex was charged for having given wrong information sourced from a faulty research. Both the Court of Appeal and the High Court set investigations to get to the bottom of the matter. They had to give a just conclusion by first identifying issues such as the intended commercial use of the research. The facts were very clear that employee had created the disputed software used to carry out the research. The courts also established that Cyprotex owned the software’s copyright.

Another party enjoined in the case was the University of Sheffield. The university was the pillar of the research in terms of financing. In addition, it had agreed to license the software for use in the research by Cyprotex. It was also argued that if Cyprotex had the software’s copyright, the University would not have been obligated to issue a license. The High Court and Appeal Court, therefore, found the university guilty. The High Court judge ruled that there was a misinterpretation of how the software was to be used.

The contract had restrictions regarding the use of the research for commercial purposes. On the other hand, the Appeal Court based its judgement on a side agreement between the University and Cyprotex. The court held that Cyprotex’s employee was indeed an agent the University. The judge, therefore, held that the university should have been the owner of the software’s copyright. It would then be appropriate to hold the university accountable because it reserves the copyright to the software.