Commissioned software ownership case

The IPKat has learnt from of a decision that doesn’t yet seem to have made it to BAILII.

It concerns a dispute between Stephen Landamore, a programmer, and Laurence Wrenn, who runs a business selling interfaces for cars and audio equipment. Wrenn commissioned Landamore to write the software for those interfaces, but no express agreement was made concerning the ownership of the copyright in the work. The pair fell out, and a court case ensued.

Robert Englehart QC, sitting as a deputy judge, found that Wrenn was entitled to an implied exclusive licence, but not the assignment of copyright that he sought. He also awarded Landamore royalties of just over £45k.

The IPKat reckons that from the looks of it, this is a relatively unexceptional case. However, he’d be interested to know on what grounds the deputy judge justified the granting of a licence that was exclusive.
Commissioned software ownership case Commissioned software ownership case Reviewed by Unknown on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. I would have thought that the exclusivity would also be an implied term in the commission - if I pay someone to write some software for me, I would not want my competitors to be able to receive the same software on the cheap. Of course, the programmer would be in a position to use the knowledge obtained in writing the software to write new code for the competitors but that is another matter.

  2. This scenario is a unique case that should be considered. Its a good learnings.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.