B Three Technology VS Keydonesoft Sdn Bhd (2018)


April 23, 2025


Case study: B Three Technology VS Keydonesoft Sdn Bhd

Date: 30th April 2018

Type: copyright infringement

Background: 

B Three Technology's owner, Chuah Aik King, filed a lawsuit in Kuala Lumpur's High Court of Malaya against Keydonesoft Sdn. Bhd., the defendant. In two computer programs, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had violated his copyright:


MyCard Solution Software for B3 Café Internet Café Billing Management ("B3 Programme")


"Coin River Programme" is the name of the Coin River Net Café Management System.


According to the Plaintiff, parts of the Defendant's programs were replicated in the "Keybilling Management System" software.


Key Arguments:


Using a copyright agreement (dated 13 January 2009), the plaintiff claimed to have developed the "MyCard Solution Programme" and hired a Chinese company (ZYS) to do so.


He provided source code proof written by ZYS's Mr. Feng Jiang.


The accused contended that:


Keybilling software was developed by ZYS under a different contract.


ZYS is the owner of the copyright in Keybilling.


The interfaces of the two programs differed.


Due to legislative requirements, the plaintiff charged exorbitant fees by abusing his unique position as B3's distributor.


Legal Action & Outcome:


The Court held that software functions (i.e., ideas) are not protected under copyright law, per Section 7(2A) of the Malaysian Copyright Act—only the expression of those ideas (such as source code) is eligible for protection.


The plaintiff was unable to establish copyright ownership because


He showed no technical expertise or prior software development experience.


He acknowledged that Mr. Feng of ZYS wrote the source code, but he did not summon him as a witness;


The plaintiff was deemed not a trustworthy witness by the court.


Only the copyright owner may file a lawsuit for infringement under Section 37(1), which the plaintiff was unable to prove.

The Court dismissed the suit with costs, concluding that the Plaintiff had no legal standing to sue due to lack of proven ownership.


Why This Case Matters?: 


Clearly Defines Software Copyright Protection Boundaries


reaffirms that only the expression (the way it is written) is protected, not the concepts or functions (what software performs).


Establishes a Standard for Ownership Proof:


It's not enough to just commission software or have a hazy copyright agreement.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Study: Sony Music Malaysia vs. Pesona Cipta Sdn Bhd (2000)

Case Study Background: In this landmark case, Sony Music Entertainment Malaysia filed a lawsuit against Pesona Cipta Sdn Bhd, a local production company, for unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Sony’s copyrighted music content. What Happened? Pesona Cipta was found to have duplicated and sold several audio CDs containing songs that were originally produced and owned by Sony Music without obtaining proper licenses or permission. These CDs were distributed to the public, resulting in profit from copyrighted content. Legal Action & Outcome: Sony Music sued under the Copyright Act 1987. The court found that Pesona Cipta violated Sony’s copyright and ordered the company to pay damages and stop distributing the copied materials. This case highlighted the seriousness of copyright infringement and the strength of copyright laws in Malaysia. Why This Case Matters This case sends a clear message that intellectual property rights must be respected, and even companies can face heavy ...
Read more

Case Study: Sara Nadzirah binti Zulkifli v Khirulanuar bin Mohamadiah (2023)

This case seems to be recent, with the rise in popularity of quick platform such as Instagram, and netizens posting without knowledge of copyright infringement. What's it about? The plaintiff named Sara Nadzirah is a social media influencer. The initial action that sparked the case was of her recording a 51-second video of herself eating durian as a "mukbang" and uploaded it to her Instagram account. The clip/video gain significant attention, as she had a following alongside platform algorithm. ​ Infringement The defendant named Khirulanuar was the reason as to why attention went to the video and Sara Nadzirah. He posted her video on his own platform without her permission, Ezydurian Services , as an opportunity to promote his brand over the plaintiff's image of being a small content creator. Legal Action Sara Nadzirah had demanded Khirulanuar to remove the video off of his brand platform, but he rejected her request. She later filed a lawsuit for copyright i...
Read more

Warner Music Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Metro Music Sdn Bhd (2005)

Case Study: Warner Music Malaysia vs. Metro Music Sdn Bhd (2005) Date: 8th March 2005 Type: Copyright Infringement – Illegal Distribution of Music Background Warner Music Malaysia filed a case against Metro Music Sdn Bhd, a retail and wholesale business, for distributing pirated VCDs and audio CDs of copyrighted songs owned by Warner Music and its affiliated labels. What Happened? Metro Music was caught selling and wholesaling large quantities of unlicensed music recordings in local markets and through unofficial channels. The recordings were traced back to Warner's catalog, including international and domestic artists. Legal Action & Outcome Warner Music brought the action under the Copyright Act 1987, claiming substantial commercial loss and damage to reputation. The High Court found Metro Music guilty of infringement of copyright and ordered the company to pay statutory damages and legal costs. An injunction was also issued to prevent all other infringing activities. Why Thi...
Read more