Archive for February, 2014
Most Canadian businesses will have heard of the incoming Canadian Anti-Spam Law (referred to as CASL, which joins the Canadian pantheon of legislative acronyms like PIPEDA and PIPA). The consent requirements for sending commercial electronic messages (CEMs) is covered elsewhere (See here, and see this upcoming event on March 18 and 20, 2014). Those requirements come into effect July 1, 2014.
The software-related regulations are getting less press. Why? Possibly because CASL is being implemented in phases, and the software-related rules are not expected to be in full force until January 15, 2015. And possibly because the software-related regs are complicated and at times confusing.
This element of CASL is designed to control surreptitious installation of software, particularly “invasive software”. Generally, express, clear consent is required. Installation of invasive software imposes additional requirements. Implied consent (or “deemed express consent”) may be relied upon in other cases:
- cookies, HTML code, Java scripts;
- upgrades for telecom network security;
- “reasonable” installs – where it is reasonable to expect that the user would consent.
Software vendors should take note of these incoming obligations, to assess and plan for any updates that will be required for CASL compliance. Get advice on how these regulations apply to your software products.
Calgary – 07:00 MSTNo comments
Where a technology license carries with it an obligation to pay royalties based on revenues, how does the licensor determine if the revenues are accurately reported? The sales are known to the licensee, but the licensor has no way of determining what those sales are. Many license agreements impose reporting obligations on the licensee, so that monthly or quarterly sales are reported to the licensor, to enable accurate royalties to be calculated. In the recent decision in XY, LLC v. Zhu , 2013 BCCA 352 (CanLII), the BC Court of Appeal dealt with a licensee who breached the terms of the technology license agreement, and committed the “tort of deceit” (that’s how lawyers say “they lied”).
In this case, the licensee did not only underreport or withhold information, they actively falsified records and thus substantially underpaid the royalties owed to the licensor. The tort of deceit is made up of these elements:
- a false representation or statement made by the defendant,
- the statement was knowingly false,
- the statement was made with the intention to deceive the plaintiff, and
- the statement materially induced the plaintiff to act, resulting in damage.
A damage award of over $8 million was awarded by the court, as an assessment of the amount would put the licensor in the position it would have been in, if the licensee had performed its obligations and paid the propert amount of royalties.
One interesting twist on appeal was whether the employees of the licensee should be personally liable. Employees are not generally held responsible for the wrongs committed by the employer. After reviewing the law, the Court of Appeal decided that the claims of deceit should be available against certain employees, and those employees were not shielded merely because they were employees acting in the course of their duties. Since these employees were actively devising ways to deceive the other side, they were acting outside the scope of regular duties, and the “just following orders” defence was not accepted by the court.
Calgary – 07:00 MSTNo comments