Morewear Industries (Rhodesia) Pvt Ltd v Irvine 1960 Burrell's PR 202
36
Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd v Ng Sui Nam 1987 RPC 104
(Singapore High Court)
33
Singapore
United Kingdom
Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142
33
British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ld v Lind (1917) 34 RPC 101
(Ch)
35
Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 2 All ER 879 (CA)
37
Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava [2007] EWCA Civ 217
35
Noah v Shuba 1991 FSR 14 (Ch)
36
Stephenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v Macdonald &Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10
(CA)
36
United States of America
Avtec Systems Inc v Peiffer 67 F3d 293, 38 USPQ 2d 1922
36
Community for Creative NonViolence v Reid 490 US 730 (1989)
36
Genzmer v Public Health Trust of MiamiDade County 219 FSupp.2d 1275
36
Miller v CP Chemicals Inc 808 FSupp 1238
36
Trewhella Bros (UK) Ltd v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd Stranex Judgments
on Copyright 57
36
View Parallel Citation
Judgment
HARMS ADP:
Introduction
[1] The appellant, Mr Pieter King, sought to enforce a copyright claim in computer programs against the
respondent, the South African Weather Service, in the High Court, Pretoria. His claim on the merits of the case
was dismissed. The trial court refused leave to appeal but it was subsequently granted by this Court. In the
event, as will appear hereafter, we dismiss the appeal with costs on the ground that King was not the
copyright owner.
[2] Mr King was an employee of many years' standing of the Chief Directorate of the Weather Bureau ("the
Bureau"), which at all relevant times was a division of one or other state department. The respondent, a
juristic person, was formed in terms of the South African Weather Service Act 8 of 2001 and it took over all the
functions of the Bureau and replaced it as
Page 33 of [2009] 2 All SA 31 (SCA)
from 15 July 2001. In terms of section 18(1), King automatically became an employee of the respondent. He
was essentially a meteorological technical officer in charge of the Upington office. A dispute arose concerning
the source codes of computer programs developed by King, which he refused to hand over to the respondent.
This led to his suspension and disciplinary steps on the ground of insubordination. He was subsequently
found guilty at the disciplinary hearing and dismissed.
[3] On 12 June 2002, which was during the period of suspension, King sought to draw to the respondent's
attention the fact that the programs he had written prior to 7 June 2000 "were not written in the course and
View Parallel Citation
scope" of his employment or "under [the employer's] supervision and control"; instead, he alleged, as the
person who exercised control over the making, he was the author. However, on the assumption that he may
have authorised the respondent to use his programs, he gave notice of the termination of any licence with
effect from 30 June 2002. The respondent did not comply with his demand and about a year later he instituted
action claiming an interdict and damages.
[4] In the action, which is the subject of this appeal, King's case was in short that he had created a number of
weather computer programs between 1980 and 2002; that they had been written in his own time, at home,