Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter N
Phorm's overall technology is currently Patent Pending though is does make use of some that are already patented. A level of protection is offered whilst the patent is being considered as long as it is registered and this would almost certainly include an FOI act exemption otherwise the act would be wide open to abuse by rival companies.
Also bear in mind that patents only describe the uses and applications of the new technology in broad terms in order to qualify as an invention under the terms of the relevant acts.
|
Let's not get hung up on the patents and confidentiality thing. We are both on the same side after all. The fact is they think there is something that qualifies for exemption under the FOIA due to it being "Commercially confidential". That is just an excuse. There is certainly some information that could released without impinging on Phorms rights to commercial confidentiality. We've already seen FOIA responses that had names blacked out.
---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
Emma Sanderson is quoted as saying;
Principal counter arguments being, Phorm don't obtain a licence to copy or use (because they don't make a separate identifiable request for the document which the author can accept or reject), and the use of the copy without licence is not fair or reasonable (because it damages the author).
|
...and Section 28A doesn't apply where the copyrighted work is a database or computer program (such as embedded javascript).
...and an implied licence cannot exist where an explicit licence is in place (which may explicitly withhold the right to use for advertising or commercial purposes).