NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Camilla Vislie, Magnus Hauge Greaker, Julie Rasmussen Solli and Amalie Hauge Pedersen, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS
system. This communication system was devel - oped specifically for FMA by Lividi. Since 2013, Lividi’s primary task has been the development, maintenance, and support of the Hermod system for FMA. Lividi claimed to hold the right to commercialise the software, despite the fact that FMA had been granted an extended right of disposal in the agreement. Lividi argued that the right of disposal should be interpreted restrictively to prevent transfer and access to Kongsberg Gruppen. The court rejected Lividi’s appeal on 20 Decem - ber 2023. The interpretation of the agreements between Lividi and FMA was crucial, and the court found no evidence of a mutual understand - ing between the parties that would limit FMA’s choice of third parties. The court emphasised that agreements between professional parties should be interpreted objectively, and there was no proof that Lividi and FMA had a shared understanding that restricted FMA’s selection of third parties. The court also noted that Lividi did not raise this interpretation during earlier pro - ceedings. In the relevant agreement, FMA was granted an unlimited, non-exclusive, and free right to utilise the software, which included the right to use, copy, modify, and further develop the software, either independently or with the help of third par - ties. The court found that the term “third parties” could not be interpreted restrictively to exclude Kongsberg Gruppen, thereby allowing FMA to transfer and let them access the software. The Dataloy case On 28 February 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling regarding copyright to software programs and databases in a case between the developer B, Dataloy AS, and Dataloy Systems
AS. B developed the software program Dataloy Distance Table (DDT) in the 1970s, and Dataloy AS was established in 1984 to manage licences. Dataloy Systems AS was created in 2002 to pro - fessionalise the development of DDT. B claimed ownership and rights to seven soft - ware programs related to DDT. The court con - cluded that B was the copyright holder of two of these programs. However, for the other five programs, the court determined that they were developed by Dataloy Systems AS as part of the company’s operations and involved contribu - tions from other employees. Therefore, Dataloy Systems AS was deemed the copyright holder of these five programs. B’s arguments that the new programs were part of the original solution and that he retained rights to them did not succeed because he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. Regarding the databases, the court found that B had exclusive rights to a part of one of the databases, based on the substantial investment he had made in developing and maintaining it. However, the court rejected B’s claim to the oth - er database, which contained customer informa - tion, concluding that this database was owned by Dataloy Systems AS as it was created and maintained as part of B’s employment with the company. The court also addressed the issue of whether Dataloy Systems AS had waived its rights to the database through the payment of an annual licence fee to B. The court concluded that the licence fee was for the use of the entire DDT solution, not just the database, and there - fore did not constitute a waiver of rights. The Bodø Nu case On 12 July 2023, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling in a case between two journalism students and Bodø Publishing AS. The case concerned
403 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook