知识产权的所有权:在Makate v Vodacom案中,Vodacom是否“出售”了它的权利?

M. Forere
{"title":"知识产权的所有权:在Makate v Vodacom案中,Vodacom是否“出售”了它的权利?","authors":"M. Forere","doi":"10.47348/saipl/v9/a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The case between Mr Makate and Vodacom, which was decided by the highest court in the land — the Constitutional Court, raises interesting intellectual property questions; yet it was argued and decided on as a purely contractual matter. Specifically, Vodacom was found to have been in breach of an agreement to reward a former employee who conceived an idea that led to the development of a product known as ‘Please Call Me’ while still employed by Vodacom. In the main, the dispute is now about fair compensation payable to Mr Makate. It is argued herein that the determination of fair compensation is predicated on the determination of ownership of the ‘Please Call Me’ product. This paper finds that ownership of the product in question vests in Vodacom in accordance with the Copyright Act and the Patents Act, even though the product was never patented, which, in turn, makes compensation to Mr Makate even less determinable. Accordingly, it is argued herein that any determination of compensation must be based on how the industry, in general, and Vodacom, in particular, has rewarded its employees who have conceived workable ideas in the past. Thus, compensation cannot be based on market value.","PeriodicalId":357543,"journal":{"name":"South African Intellectual Property Law Journal","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ownership of intellectual property rights: Did Vodacom ‘sell’ its rights in Makate v Vodacom?\",\"authors\":\"M. Forere\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/saipl/v9/a2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The case between Mr Makate and Vodacom, which was decided by the highest court in the land — the Constitutional Court, raises interesting intellectual property questions; yet it was argued and decided on as a purely contractual matter. Specifically, Vodacom was found to have been in breach of an agreement to reward a former employee who conceived an idea that led to the development of a product known as ‘Please Call Me’ while still employed by Vodacom. In the main, the dispute is now about fair compensation payable to Mr Makate. It is argued herein that the determination of fair compensation is predicated on the determination of ownership of the ‘Please Call Me’ product. This paper finds that ownership of the product in question vests in Vodacom in accordance with the Copyright Act and the Patents Act, even though the product was never patented, which, in turn, makes compensation to Mr Makate even less determinable. Accordingly, it is argued herein that any determination of compensation must be based on how the industry, in general, and Vodacom, in particular, has rewarded its employees who have conceived workable ideas in the past. Thus, compensation cannot be based on market value.\",\"PeriodicalId\":357543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Intellectual Property Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Intellectual Property Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/saipl/v9/a2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Intellectual Property Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/saipl/v9/a2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

马卡特先生和Vodacom之间的案件由该国最高法院——宪法法院裁决,引发了有趣的知识产权问题;然而,它被认为是一个纯粹的合同问题。具体来说,Vodacom被发现违反了一项协议,即奖励一名前员工,该员工在Vodacom工作期间构思了一个想法,导致了一款名为“请打电话给我”的产品的开发。总的来说,现在的争议是关于应向Makate先生支付的公平赔偿。本文认为,公平补偿的确定是基于“请打电话给我”产品所有权的确定。本文发现,根据《版权法》和《专利法》,相关产品的所有权归属于Vodacom,尽管该产品从未获得过专利,这反过来又使得对Makate先生的补偿更加难以确定。因此,本文认为,任何薪酬的确定都必须基于整个行业,特别是Vodacom,如何奖励过去提出可行想法的员工。因此,薪酬不能以市场价值为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ownership of intellectual property rights: Did Vodacom ‘sell’ its rights in Makate v Vodacom?
The case between Mr Makate and Vodacom, which was decided by the highest court in the land — the Constitutional Court, raises interesting intellectual property questions; yet it was argued and decided on as a purely contractual matter. Specifically, Vodacom was found to have been in breach of an agreement to reward a former employee who conceived an idea that led to the development of a product known as ‘Please Call Me’ while still employed by Vodacom. In the main, the dispute is now about fair compensation payable to Mr Makate. It is argued herein that the determination of fair compensation is predicated on the determination of ownership of the ‘Please Call Me’ product. This paper finds that ownership of the product in question vests in Vodacom in accordance with the Copyright Act and the Patents Act, even though the product was never patented, which, in turn, makes compensation to Mr Makate even less determinable. Accordingly, it is argued herein that any determination of compensation must be based on how the industry, in general, and Vodacom, in particular, has rewarded its employees who have conceived workable ideas in the past. Thus, compensation cannot be based on market value.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信