4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
"Nature of copyright in computer programs Copyright in a computer program vests the exclusive right to do or
authorise the doing of any of the following acts in the Republic:
(a) Reproducing the computer program in any manner or form;
(b) publishing the computer program if it was hitherto unpublished;
(c) performing the computer program in public;
(d) broadcasting the computer program;
(e) causing the computer program to be transmitted in a diffusion service, unless such service transmits a lawful
broadcast, including the computer program, and is operated by the original broadcaster;
( f ) making an adaptation of the computer program;
(g) doing, in relation to an adaptation of the computer program, any of the acts specified in relation to the computer
program in paragraphs (a)(e) inclusive;
(h) letting, or offering or exposing for hire by way of trade, directly or indirectly, a copy of the computer program."
See Biotech Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group Plc 2002 (4) SA 249, [2002] 3 All SA 652 (SCA).
Discussed in Biotech Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group Plc (supra).
Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava [2007] EWCA Civ 217.
Presumably the commonlaw approach still applies to South African patents since the current Patents Act 57 of 1978
does not deal with patents by employees. The Designs Act 195 of 1993, s 1(1) sv "proprietor" is similar to the Copyright
Act.
See British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ld v Lind (1917) 34 RPC 101 (Ch).
Copyright Act 17 USC s 201(b) read with s 101.
Avtec Systems Inc v Peiffer 67 F3d 293, 38 USPQ 2d 1922.
Genzmer v Public Health Trust of MiamiDade County 219 FSupp.2d 1275 and Miller v CP Chemicals Inc 808 FSupp 1238
are particularly instructive.
Michael D B i r n h a c k "Working Authors" (October 2008) fn 3. Tel Aviv University Legal Working Paper Series.
www.law.bepress.com/taulwps/fp/art97/ (accessed 4 November 2008).
See, in another context, Ngubetole v Administrator, Cape 1975 (3) SA 1 (A) 8G9F. Also Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria
The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (2ed) vol 1 at para 11.37.
Trewhella Bros (UK) Ltd v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd Stranex Judgments on Copyright 57; Stephenson Jordan &
Harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10 (CA); Noah v Shuba 1991 FSR 14 (Ch); Morewear Industries
(Rhodesia) Pvt Ltd v Irvine 1960 Burrell's PR 202 (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland).
Compare British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ld v Lind (1917) 34 RPC 101 (Ch) 109.
Per Diplock LJ in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 2 All ER 879 (CA) quoted in Bezuidenhout NO v Eskom 2003 (3) SA 83, [2003]
1 All SA 411 (SCA) at para 21, both dealing with tort or delict.
Noah v Shuba 1991 FSR 14 (Ch).
It may, though, be noted that counsel was unable to point to any evidence which established an infringing act after the
date on which the licence was supposed to have ceased. The only evidence related to the use of programs and even
WAWS was no longer being used by the respondent at the time of the trial.