<p>In recent times companies have been forced to become more and more digitalized in order to spread company information and facilitate communication with clients, con-sumers and their own employees. The knowledge to integrate software and launch the company into the digital world cannot always be found within the company itself. Therefore, companies often resort to employing consulting companies to enable this for them. Because of copyright, the software created does not solely belong to the employing company – the intellectual property rights automatically stay with the con-sulting company that made it.</p><p>When the consulting company omits details concerning intellectual property rights in the employment contract, the standard rules in the Swedish Copyright Act and the international directives kick in and give the consulting company the full rights to the programmes that it has created – with a few exceptions. The employing company may only alter the software in order to ensure that it is fully compatible with the al-ready existing programmes it utilises and the operating system it uses. Even reverse engineering is permitted as long as the information gathered is only used for ensuring the compatibility.</p><p>Information in databases is protected as it is creatively arranged in systematic or me-thodical way by the one that has made a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the information. The substantial investment depends on the one that has taken the risk of investing in the particular database. As databases are rarely made by consulting companies on behalf of a client, and the rules are sufficiently clear as to whom the ownership of the database is, there are few questions concerning data-bases. Because of this, the assumption would be that the current legislation is work-ing properly.</p><p>One of the more troubling issues in regards to copyright is that even though reverse engineering is illegal, proving infringement comes down to evidence and what parts that are quantitatively or qualitatively significant in the original programme. Cur-rently, there is no registry of copyrighted works in Sweden and so there is not telling who made the programme first if the work happens to spread. The creators of soft-ware have expressed concern and allegedly lobbied for a new directive giving more protection to the original creators. The culmination of the lobby work was the Soft-ware Patent Directive, which proposed that software should be seen as an invention and therefore eligible for patenting. However, there were many reasons as to why software should not be patented, most notably increased cost and the years of wait-ing for the patent grant, and the directive was rejected. Still, the concerns persisted and no greater protection has been given to the creators of software.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:hj-10298 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | Nilsson, Ola |
| Publisher | Jönköping University, JIBS, Commercial Law |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds