The Paris Magistrates` Court considered French law. Section L122-6 of the Intellectual Property Act defined the infringement as a copyright infringement, but section L12-6-1 of the same code dictated the general law of contracts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and found that unlawful liability in favour of contractual liability is not taken into account when the parties are bound by a valid agreement and that the harm suffered by one results from non-compliance with the harmful harm. Applying a licensing agreement becomes much easier if the contract itself is well written. If the parties clearly understand their rights and obligations under the licensing agreement, this can help prevent long-term disputes. Is non-compliance with a software licensing agreement a violation of intellectual property or can it be subject to another national legal system? The threshold is whether the licence is exclusive or non-exclusive. The courts have held that if an exclusive licence has been granted to the licensee, the unlicensed use of the IP is only an offence. The underlying rationale arises from the argument that an exclusive license transfers ownership of IP rights. The licensee is not in a position to infringe an interest in ip that he owns.
Therefore, any use of the investigation period beyond the scope of the licence agreement would lead to an infringement and not a violation. Conversely, any use of the IP address beyond the scope of the licensing agreement could lead to the licensee being held liable for a violation if the licensee has received only a non-exclusive licence. To prove copyright infringement in the event of a breach of a licensing agreement, the owner must complete two elements. First, the use must be beyond the scope of the licence. Second, the offence must be based on an exclusive copyright such as the reproduction or dissemination of a work. In IT Development v Free Mobile, a software developer named IT Development has reached an agreement with Free Mobile, a French mobile operator, on the use of ClickOnLine software. This software allowed Free Mobile to organize and monitor its telephone antennas in real time. IT Development claimed that Free Mobile had changed the source code of the computer program it had authorized and brought an action against it in the French courts, on the grounds that the amendment constituted a copyright infringement. Another important issue in the distinction between breach of contract or violation of the IP is whether the provision of the licensing agreement that has been breached is a contract or a precedent.