Virtual Map, the owner of streetdirectory.com , has made quite a good living enforcing their intellectual property rights against large and small companies in Singapore - when these companies used the unprotected jpg maps from streetdirectory.com, boom! they got threatened with a suit, and they'd settle out of court. And their licensing fees and `penalties' were not cheap. They succeeded against several parties, including the most famous case of all, NTUC! The fees were quite outrageous as I recall.
All the map data was licensed from SLA. They were trading in the license.
And SLA has started an action against Virtual Map, as reported by TODAY here. SLA states that it terminated their licensing to Virtual Map in July 2004.
Well, let's just see what happens. Virtual Map has only gotten hate from what I read in the papers the past few years, with their victims claiming entrapment, inducement, `making a living outta suing people', etc. Nothing flattering coming from the victims of course.
Well, let's see whether the SLA succeeds. If the SLA wins, Virtual Map might have to pay back all the license fees it collected from its clients since July 2004, with interest. Facts from the case and rulings might also put holes in Virtual Map's license even before July 2004, and the payback may extend even before July 2004.
After everything, their victims might hope that somebody might have the bright idea to allege that Virtual Map KNOWINGLY licensed their maps without having valid title.
Let the Discovery process reveal interesting internal emails! This will be fun to watch.
more blogs on this: Cnet Gin's Tonic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ATOM XML Feed
4 comments:
It's a bit more complex than that - even if piratical, an adaptation has its own copyright. So long as VirtualMap did add/do something to the mapping data it originally licenced from SLA, it would have copyright over the images made available on its website. The fact that they had infringed some other IP is a separate matter.
maybe the question should be why VirtualMap is able to get away with exorbitant licensing fees and 'penalties'.
I have the feeling SLA will succeed anyway. And I reckon the judgment will be made on a "exception to the norm" argument. Let's find out if my post here today will be right or wrong.
The rendering of a map into vector-based rasters is indeed afforded some kind of copyright. However, it reduces the worth of the license for this map render because of the subsidiary costs of the entire rights to the map.
It may be that the SLA may be merely remedying a mistake it made YEARS earlier.
please please SLA ... WIN this case so that i can take back $4000 fees i had to forge out from my own pocket. sigh... I've never had problems with copyright stuff. In normal practice, a WARNING is usually issued before summons. I mean, look at Credit card.. warning after warning, THEN they'll sue. Not for the case of VirtulMap, I've even tried to negoiate with the person in-charge, she didn't even have to think twice and brushed me off. SLA PLEASE WIN.
Post a Comment