making of the computer program". As has been pointed out above, the person who exercises control over the
making of a computer program is a person who has the power of regulation of the manner in which the person who
"makes" the program is to do his or her work. "Control" in this context does not, in my view, mean that the person
who exercises control must be able to instruct the programmer as to technical detail. Control means setting the
purpose and requirements that the program to be made must satisfy, and evaluating the work of the person that
"makes" the program to ensure that the requirements are met and that the program is functional and capable of
fulfilling the stated purpose.
In my view, it was the company which was, through its employees, the applicant and the second respondent, in
general and overriding control of the creation of the program. The applicant and the second respondent instructed
the third respondent, the "maker" of the program, as to the purpose and functionality of the program that the
company required. The third respondent
Page 83 of [2004] 4 All SA 67 (C)
employed his own technical skill to write a program that fulfilled the requirements that were set.
As has been pointed out above, the applicant filled the Questions.db table by capturing all the questions, possible
answers and occupations that form the backbone of the AMPS data. Transposing the data from the hardcopy of the
AC Nielsen questionnaire was a timeconsuming, laborious and tedious task. It was, however, a task that involved
no creativity or originality: the selection and arrangement of the material was determined by the AC Nielsen
questionnaire.
Waiver
The applicant has a further arrow in its quiver in the form of a waiver of copyright. The contention makes its
appearance in the replying papers:
"What is important to note is that second respondent, since inception of my business, was well aware of the fact that the
sole asset of my new business was the AMPS program and at the time, he had no objection to the fact that I was
proceeding with the AMPS program that had its birth at Almanac. I stress this point as second respondent, as stated in
the founding papers, is married to my wife's sister. My new business venture, was regularly discussed at family
gatherings which took
View Parallel Citation
place at least every six weeks. With hindsight I am of the opinion that Second Respondent accepted the fact that I
continue with the AMPS program as this was my share of the entitlement to the assets of the business of Almanac which
has now ceased trading. As stated above, he continued with the other assets of Almanac and in fact I was under the
impression that, if second respondent had any rights, he had waived any right, title or interest in the AMPS program,
alternatively, had abandoned any right, title and interest in the AMPS program." (My emphasis.)
Waiver must always be strictly proved and is never presumed. The position is succinctly stated by Nienaber JA in
Road Accident Fund v Mothupi2 2000 (4) SA 38 (SCA) at 50G:
"Because no one is presumed to waive his rights (cf Ellis and others v Laubscher 1956 (4) SA 692 (A) at 702EF), one,
the onus is on the party alleging it and, two, clear proof is required of an intention to do so (Hepner v Roodepoort
Maraisburg Town Council 1962 (4) SA 772 (A) at 778D779A; Borstlap v Spangenberg en andere 1974 (3) SA 695 (A) at
704FH). The conduct from which waiver is inferred, so it has frequently been stated, must be unequivocal, that is,
consistent with no other hypothesis."
The failure on the part of the first respondent to assert its copyright does not, in my view, amount to conduct from
which an intention to waive and abandon those rights can be inferred.
The state of the Project AMPS program on 31 July 1998
The Project AMPS program consisted of a compiler, that is, a program that translates the binary data stored in the
AMPS UFL file into a programming format that can be read by the software; the "front end" of the program, that is,
the executable file which contains all the necessary programming code which interacts with the various other files in
the program to manipulate the data. The executable file also determines the final look of the program and the way
in which the user is able to interface therewith. There were also other files which stored the data, including the
weighting, the questions and the answers contained in the AMPS disks.
Page 84 of [2004] 4 All SA 67 (C)
The applicant's case is largely based on the contention that as at 31 July 1998 the program was not functional.
In order to back up his contention that the program did not function, the applicant conducted a demonstration in
court in which he did certain test runs. One example he chose related to "average readership" which produced a
zero result in the results screen. This was not a random choice since the problem regarding "average readership"
was known to both the applicant and the third respondent already in the middle of June 1998. The problem was
highlighted by the third respondent in an email to the applicant dated 14 June 1998 which reads as follows:
"Hi,
1.
weighted, unweighted, percentages working
2.
rough print working