[ad_1]
An innovator has failed to prove claims that Safaricom infringed on his copyright by using a mobile software application, an idea he allegedly submitted to the telco some eight years ago.
Solut Technology sued Safaricom, claiming that the mobile operator had exploited his works to his detriment.
The innovator said he submitted his idea –the Wavu application– to Safaricom’s Zindua Cafe for consideration on October 31, 2016.
But after rejecting his software application, the company, through Jimnoon Magolo, said Safaricom launched a similar application known as Thibitisha, which infringed on his intellectual property.
High Court judge Freda Mugambi dismissed the claim, stating that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
The judge added that the expression of ideas is manifested through source codes, which serves as the primary evidence for showing how Safaricom may have infringed on the software.
“The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the defendant had access to the application or that they copied the protected elements of the work, given the source code –the tangible expression of the software– was not disclosed to the defendants,” said the judge.
The judge said if ideas were protected by copyright, it would stifle creativity and innovation by preventing others from using or expanding upon those ideas to create new works.
“I am therefore not satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated that there was an infringement of its expression in the Wavu Application. To rule otherwise would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that merely thinking of an idea could enable someone to prevent others from independently conceptualising similar ideas using different methods,” added the judge.
The innovator said he submitted the idea through the Zindua Café platform, a portal owned by Safaricom that accepts innovative ideas from external software developers interested in partnering with the company.
He said he uploaded his software application to the portal on October 31, 2016, for consideration and purchase, and about 10 days later, he met Safaricom’s officials and demonstrated the concept of the control programme.
Safaricom defended itself saying the programme was independently developed and that the developer had waived his rights when he uploaded it to the portal, which, according to the telco, granted it irrevocable and unrestricted rights to the idea.
The telco faulted him for not protecting his programme before uploading it to the portal, and it was possible that the idea may have been submitted by other users on the portal.
“Even if there may be certain similarities in general ideas between two applications, it is not possible to determine where the expression of the ideas is similar, and therefore, whether the innovation by the claimant is original,” reads part of the judgment.
Regarding the issue of whether Safaricom’s Zindua Café had unreasonable terms, the court observed that the portal was a public forum and that Safaricom did not exert any pressure, threats, or undue influence on Solut Technology to submit its proposal.
[ad_2]
