B.N. FIROS versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

B.N. FIROS versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Section 70(1) of the IT Act does not operate independently and must be construed alongside Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act. Copyright in the FRIENDS software, developed for Microsoft and supplied to the Government, does not vest in the appellant due to both statutory and contractual provisions. High Court orders did not warrant interference.

Parties
Appellant: B.N. Firos; Respondent: State of Kerala; Respondent: Centre for Development of Imaging Technology (C-DIT); Respondent: Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected System Under IT Act, Government Work and Copyright, E Governance Software Ownership
Information Technology Law Intellectual Property Law Protected System Under IT Act Government Work and Copyright E Governance Software Ownership

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.N. Firos

Appellant

State of Kerala

Respondent

Centre for Development of Imaging Technology (C-DIT)

Respondent

Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notification declaring the FRIENDS application software as a protected system infringes the appellant's copyright
  2. 2 Whether the copyright in the FRIENDS application software vests in the appellant or the Government under the Copyright Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 70(1) of the IT Act does not operate independently and must be construed alongside Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act. Copyright in the FRIENDS software, developed for Microsoft and supplied to the Government, does not vest in the appellant due to both statutory and contractual provisions. High Court orders did not warrant interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court order
  • No order as to costs