The Legal Aspects of Software Protection in Israel

 Naomi Assia Adv.^[1] and      Rachel Alkalay, Adv.[2]

 

The purpose of this article is to review the legal aspects of software protection in Israel. Including:

 

1.    Copyright law

2.    Patent Law

3.    Trade secret Law.

4.    Computer crimes (the Israeli computer Act 1995)

5.    Open Source

6.    Software Contracts

7.    Custom Regulations

8.    Export

9.    Circumvention of technological protection

1.         COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF SOFTWARE IN ISRAEL

 

1.1.               Scope of the right

 

The basic form of protection for computer software in Israel is provided by copyright law. The pertinent legislation is the Copyright Act 1911 ("the Act") and the Copyright Ordinance 1924 ("the Ordinance") which both have remained from the British Mandate.

 

Copyrights exist in Israel in every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, as long as: 

In regard to citizens of other states, it should be noted that

In 2001 a new statute was enacted in Israel titled “The Intellectual Property Amendment Act – Adaptation to the Trips Agreement). This Act applied the principals of the TRIP Agreement into the Israeli law. But it did not import the concept that applied copyright protection on works created by someone who is merely a resident but not a citizen of a member state.

 

Copyright exists in the works from the time of their creation on throughout the author’s life and for a period of 70 years after his death.[4] Under Section 5(1) of the Act, the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright in the work.

 

In July 1998 the Israeli Parliament (“Knesset”) amended the Ordinance to include protection for computer software. Amendment no. 5 states: “For the purposes of copyright, computer software shall be treated in the same way as a literary work within the meaning thereof contained in the Copyright Act, 1911”.

 

In addition, a copyright owner of computer software is subject also to the protections contained in international treaties to which Israel is a signatory and of the extensive case law on copyright which exists in Israel. The Intellectual Property Amendment Act mention above, applied the TRIPS Agreement principal do define the copyright protected software as both source code and object code.

Another major development in this regard was the adoption of the Intellectual Property Amendment Act (according to the TRIPS Agreement) (the Amendment), which entered into affect on 1.1.2000.

 

The Amendment amended the Act, the Ordinance, and other Intellectual Property laws in order to harmonize them with the TRIPS Agreement. The Amendment amended the definition of “computer software” so that it shall include both source code and object code.^[5] The Ordinance was also amended in the issue of license to use: renting computer software is defined as a copyright in the software.

 

1.2.               Copyright Infringement

 

According to the Act, copyright can be violated by a direct or an indirect act of infringement.

 

Direct infringement occurs “…when any person who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything the sole right to do is by this Act conferred on the owner of the copyright.” [6]

 

Indirect infringement occurs when “a person sells or lets for hire or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire, or… distributes for the purposes of trade, or…imports for sale or hire…any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Israel.“ Moreover, infringing is defined by the Act as “any copy including any colorable imitation made or imported in contravention of the Act”. [7]

 

One of the most important court rulings in regard to Computer Software Copyright protection is civil appeal 139/89, Harpaz V's Ahitov. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the right and embraced a comprehensive and broad approach, following the American court ruling in the matter of Whelan.

The Supreme Court held that Computer Software Copyright exists on each and every stage of the software development process (Software requirements definitions stage, the software design stage, the programming stage) and also on the software finished product. The court ruled that: "In computer software, due to the programming concealed options, previous stages in the software development can be copied, without being able to detect it visually".– Harpaz V. Ahitov  

The Supreme Court accepted the broad approach adopted by the United States courts and determined that "Computer Software Copyright extends beyond the software textual code and also applies on the Artwork, the Structure, the User Input, the Sequence and the Organization of the software". Thus, when there is a significant similarity in the organization, sequence and structure of one software to another, this will be considered as a real, fundamental infringement of the work, even if the audio and visuals of the computer software is different.

 

In civil case 598/92 (Tel-Aviv) Golan V's Yodfat, the similarity between two computer software programs, "Narkis" and "Nihulit", was discussed,. Since the purpose of these two computer software programs was to manage execution files, the question concerned the similarity in the general idea of the software. The honorable judge Levit, in his decision to the restrictive order motion repeated the Harpaz V's Ahitov ruling and added that the question whether one software program is similar to another must be reviewed according to each single stage of the software development process as well as according to the final product. The court expert found that the infringing software had been copied from the other software. The two software programs were having a common source and characterization, even if the technical code writing was different. The court therefore granted a temporary restrictive order which prohibited the use of the infringing software until several changes would be implemented with regard to the very similar components.

 

In civil claim 869/92 Azuri V's Israel Theatre, the common Copyright ownership question in software was discussed. The honorable judge Pilpel determined that the copyright ownership in computer program belongs to both the programmer and to the person who ordered the program, due to the fact that in the process of the development, both parties had worked together in developing and adjusting the program to their common purpose. Both parties therefore have the legal right to use the program, including for developing it to an improved version, without any infringement of copyright.

 

In civil claim 554/00 (Haifa District Court) Autodesk Inc V's B.A.B Development and Engineering Limited, the plaintiff claimed infringement of copyright in its computer software. An evidence to the defendants’ infringement was found on their computer, which was seized by the police and the court awarded the plaintiff with statutory compensation. 

 

In civil appeal 2392/99, Ashraz Data processing V's Transbeton Limited the legal question was whether any separate module in computer software would be seen as an independent work entitling to a separate compensation. In addition, the court examined the question if making a copy in a different language from the source would also be seen as infringement, and whether a separate compensation should be determined. The court held that separate modules will not enjoy the separate protection. It is important to mention, however, that the court ruled that in principle it is possible to protect modules separately from the copyright in the software, but that this was not the case in the Ashraz claim.

 

 

1.3.               Remedies for Copyright Infringement

 

 

1.3.1.   Injunction

 

If the level of the potential damage can be demonstrated in a substantial manner by the copyright owner, Israeli courts may issue a temporary injunction against an alleged copyright infringer. This procedural option takes account of the extensive harm that the copyright owner can suffer awaiting trial or settlement of the matter. The issuance of an injunction is discretionary with the court; thus, all the facts and circumstances of the case will be considered.

 

In the matter of Microsoft Corp V's Egma Computers, the appellant requested a temporary injunction relief against the respondent. Microsoft claimed that Egma was selling the software license separately from the software itself, an act which infringed the software license. The court ruled that such an act constitutes contributory infringement of copyright. 

 

1.3.2.   Receivership

 

The court may appoint an ex parte receiver who has the authority to enter the premises of a defendant who is infringing another’s copyright (for example the possessors and/or distributors of pirated software) and confiscate, in the defendant’s presence, the software believed to infringe the plaintiff’s copyright.^[8]

 

Further more, the receiver is authorized to enter this defendant’s premises at all times until the end of the particular case (this may take several years) in order to ensure that the directives of the injunction are being observed.^[9] This remedy is also given against end-users. In a case sponsored by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a lawsuit was filed by Autodesk Inc. against a large engineering company and the plaintiff’s attorney was appointed as ex parte receiver. Following the appointment, 18 prima facie infringing copies of AutoCad software were found.^[10] The appointment of a receiver is clearly a strong deterrent against potential infringement.

 

1.3.3.   Anton Piller/Seizure Order

 

An Anton Piller order is an ex parte order authorizing an applicant’s attorney, or the court’s designee, to enter the defendant’s property and seize the infringing products as well as the means used to produce them (i.e. the computers used to unlawfully reproduce the software). This remedy can be especially effective in preventing the destruction or hiding of illegal software prior to judicial hearings. Despite the harshness of the remedy, Israeli courts have demonstrated a willingness to use it if sufficient evidence exists.^[11]

 

1.3.4.   Enforcement Issues

 

During the last years there have been wide changes in the matter of criminal enforcement with regard to products infringing intellectual property rights. An Intellectual Property unit in the Israeli police was established and is operating all over the country against infringement of copyrights and trademarks. The police are authorized to confiscate suspected goods. Moreover, a prosecution unit was established as well and deals with criminal suits. 

 

1.3.5.   Private Criminal Complaint

 

A remedy available in Israel that is not available in some other countries for violations of copyright is the ability of a copyright owner to file a private criminal complaint in the magistrate court against the alleged infringer. In a private criminal case, the court can impose fines or even a jail term.^[12]

 

1.3.6.   Damages

 

The monetary remedies that a copyright owner may recover if an infringement is established include recovery of damages and lost profits and costs as well as attorney’s fees. A permanent injunction may also be obtained. This is in addition to the confiscation of the infringing copies and the receipt of restraining orders for infringing activities.

Under sections 6-8 of the Act, an action may be filed to recover possessions of copies which infringe copyrighted works and to prohibit further acts of infringement. Even if a plaintiff cannot prove to have suffered damages, section 3a of the Ordinance provides a statutory damage award as follows:

 

“Where the damage caused by the infringement of a copyright has not been proved, the court may, on the application of the plaintiff, award, in respect of every infringement, compensation in an amount of not less than 20,000 NIS” (currently about 4255 US$).

 

In Saggai et al V's The estate of Abraham Ninio^[13] the Supreme Court held that the illegal reproduction of the same copyright-protected product in large quantities will be considered as a single infringement. Therefore, it is possible to apply the statutory compensation several times only if the defendant has infringed several copyrights. However, the number of infringing acts will be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation.^[14]

1.4.                Organizational Actions against Software Piracy

 

One example of an effective fight against computer software piracy in Israel is demonstrated by AutoDesk Inc.

 

In a series of civil law suits against the illegal use of software, AutoDesk has settled out of court, receiving damages based on section 3a of the Ordinance plus expenses and acquisitions of legal software copies (by the defendants) at full.^[15]

 

 

A new breakthrough in Anti Piracy activity occurred recently, when AutoDesk joined BSA, the Israeli Organization of Software Protection (IOSP) and Microsoft in filing suit, through Naomi Assia’s Law Firm, against one of the largest Israeli operators of online bulletin boards, One Man Crew.[16]

 

The operators of One Man Crew have been making illegal copies of a large variety of software programs, including popular programs (such as AutoCad, Office, computer games, etc.) available to its subscribers to download to their personal computers. The prosecutors have obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court in Haifa to stop the operation of the BBS One Man Crew and to enter the operators’ premises in order to gather evidence of illegal activity of BBS.

 

 

Later on, Judge Ginat of the District Court of Haifa ruled that only a clear evidence on part of the defendant proving that he has legally obtained the software installed in his computer or the license to use them, will be enough to dismiss an allegation of infringement of copyrights. ^[17] At the end the parties reached a settlement out of court.

 

1.5.               Recent developments: The Copyright Act Memorandum and the Copyright Bill of 2005[18]

 

Copyright legislation in Israel is based on old British legislation. Therefore, during the past years, public committees have examined new legislation in order to provide answers for new developments and modern situations. In 2003, the Ministry of Justice published the copyright act memorandum.

 

The memorandum and later on the copyright Bill of 2005 determine that computer software (in any kind of expression) is considered as a literary work[19].

 

The fourth chapter of the memorandum deals with permitted usage and determines that whoever holds a legitimate copy of a computer software is entitled to copy it for backup use, errors fixing, and for adapting the software to another program.

 

The purpose of this section is to permit, in certain conditions, limited usage in a legitimate copy of computer software, without the need of further permission from the copyright owner.

 

As for the treatment of infringing products, the memorandum suggests an essential change. The current legislation rules that prosecutor will be the owner of the infringing copies. However, this can sometimes be unreasonable, especially when the financial value of the infringing product is higher than the value of the original literal work. Therefore, in order to level the rights of both parties, the memorandum rules that the ownership of the infringing copy can be transferred to the prosecutor only in return for the full payment of the value of the work prior to the infringement.

 

2.         Protection of Software by Patent Law

 

In Israel, there is no clear policy regarding the computer software patent. There are some, few cases which adapted the American approach according to which it is possible to apply for patent protection for computer software when the software combines a software process with a practical result, such as e.g. improving oil injection system as held in the case of App. 23/94 United Technologies Corp. V. The Patent Registration.

 

 

In the light of international agreements in the field of intellectual property, signed in connection with the TRIPs Treaty, the term "invention" has been broadened to include "any technological field", so some argue that this change is a formal acknowledgment of the possibility to apply for a software patent. 

 

In App 80/501 Rosental v. The Patent Registration, however, the court held that an invention that is primarily based on calculation or programming is not entitled to patent protection. 

 

The key question in analyzing the question of the software patent in Israel is the interpretation of the term "process" in section 3 of the Patent law. In the case of Rosenthal, the court held that this term means a treatment of specific material in order to change its form or condition. Therefore, an invention in which the sole innovation is software or a computerized process was not considered a process in the sense of that provision, because it had no influence on a specific material.

 

However, in spite of these cases and in light of the large number of software patents that have been granted worldwide, many software patents have been registered in Israel as well, be it that the patents simply include software or that even the main innovation and inventive advancement was in the field of computer software or computerized process and the system or algorithm that were at the basis of that process.

 

2.   Trade Secret laws

 

 

Until October 1999, the protection of trade secrets in Israel was not regulated in the legislation.

 

The Commercial Torts Act of 1999 regulated Trade Secrets law in Israel and defined in section 5 that a trade secret is:

 

"Commercial information of any type, which is not in the public domain and which can not be lawfully revealed by others, where its secrecy gives his owner a commercial advantage and as long as its owners takes reasonable precautions in order to keep its confidentiality."

 

A trade secret infringement in Israel is considered a civil tort and the plaintiff is entitled to up to 100,000 NIS (about 20,000 US Dollars) in addition to other civil remedies such as appointment of a receiver, temporary injunction.

 

As to Software trade secrets, it should be noted that reverse engineering is in Israel not considered as revealing a trade secret.[20]

 

  

3.   Computer crimes (the Israeli Computer Act – 1995)

 

The Israeli Computer Act of 1995 determines in general that every transformation, disruption, damage to software or damage to a computer, intrusion, obtaining and deviation from authorization in computer use, presentation of false data or false output, which was created unlawfully , is a criminal violation in several degrees of severity, which may lead to prison terms for up to five years.

 

Hereinafter we will briefly review the Computer Act violations as stated in the Israeli Computer Act with a focus on the computer intrusion violation.

 

3.1.               Interruption of computer use or computer materials

 

Section 2 protects the completeness of the information and the completeness of the software. This section defines as a crime:

 

"Disruption or interruption to a computer or computer materials and deleting computer material, generation of transformation, disruption in any other way or interruption which was made unlawfully."

 

Thus causing transformation or disruption of computer materials is now a criminal violation which can lead to three years in prison.

 

In the matter of the State of Israel V's Refaeli Oded, Mr. Refaeli was among other charges accused of a violation of the Computer Act, after performing a computer intrusion from an external computer to his previous employer's computer. In order to avoid any documentation of the intrusion to the company's network by the designated software which record network activities, the defendant was deleting that documentation each time he was getting connected to the company's network.

The court held that the correct and reasonable interpretation of section 2(2) of the Computer Act is that any deletion and/or transformation of computer materials are   forbidden by the Computer Act. Accordingly, there is no need to prove that the deletion caused any damage or disruption. The actual act of deletion or disruption itself is forbidden.

 

 

3.2.               Computer fraud

Clause 3 of the Computer Act regulates one of the main computer violations nowadays:

"Whoever passes to another or stores false information or acts in regard to information so the outcome of that action will produce false information or false output, or operating a computer using such software will be sentenced For up to five years in prison."

 

The violation mentioned in clause 3 was meant to deal with problems such as  forgery, theft or fraud.

3.3.               Unauthorized computer intrusion

One of the main and basic computer violations is the intrusion to information stored in a computer. The respective clause 4 of the Act prohibits the unlawful intrusion to computer material.

Such intrusion is defined as an intrusion using a computer connection, excluding intrusion to a computer materials authorized by the Eavesdropping Act – 1979 The Act includes computer communication in the definition of a communication between people and allows computer intrusion in certain circumstances such as for state security reasons.

 

The punishment for violating this prohibition is up to three years in prison. 

 

3.4.               Computer intrusion in order to breach another violation

Section 5 of the act determines that whoever performs an unlawful act according to clause 4 in order to perform another violation, should expect prison term of up to five years. The purpose of that clause is to emphasize the severity of using advanced technical computer skills to perform criminal violations. The clause is designed to deter criminals from using computers as a tool for criminal activity.

Industrial espionage software - The Trojan horse case

 

On March 14^th 2006, the defendants Michael and Ruth Efrati pleaded guilty and were convicted in a plea bargain for the development of an industrial espionage software. They were sentenced to 4 years in prison and will have to compensate the defendants to an amount of 2 Million NIS (approximately $US 400,000). They were convicted by the Tel Aviv District court of criminal offence against the Computer Act of 1995, in addition to fraud criminal offences.

 

This "Trojan horse" affair has so far been Israel's biggest computer fraud scheme. It started in May 2005, when a book author filed a complaint to the police about an entry to his personal computer.

 

The police investigation found that the Efrati couple had sold the "Trojan horse" software to some private investigations offices which were distributing it among their customers, and by doing so, extracted valuable knowledge and trade secrets from their customers' competitors.

 

According to the indictment, the software was designated to be inserted to computers as an innocent program, for example as an advertisement CD, when in fact the software was executing several actions without the knowledge and consent of the computer user. That software was able to cause damage and disruption to the content of the computer, among others and able to control and manipulate the computer from far.

 

The Efrati couple were arrested in London and extradited to Israel. 

 

 

4.   Open Source Software

 

Open source does not simply mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software is a lot broader than that and can be defined by the following criteria:

Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.

Source Code: The program must include the source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as in compiled form. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.

Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from a modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license.

 

 

Using the open-source software enables the user to locate software bugs, fix them and improve the software. In addition, the use of systems based on open-source can minimize the cost of acquiring licenses, and can encourage competition in the market. Another reason for using open source software is that it is developed at a high pace, due to the fact that the open source software enables many changes and improvements.

 

Open-source software provides immediate solutions and improvement of the software’s applications for the benefit of the public. The use of operating systems based on open-source can lead to full control and treatment of viruses, security flaws and performances.

However, open source software can at times be unsafe and unstable. The fact that any user can make changes without limitation, and even without the proper qualifications, can harm the safety level of the software.

 

 

The concept of open-source software has spread in Israel from the private sector to the public sector. On November 2002, a proposal for amending the Tender Obligation Act has been filed to the Knesset with the main motive of encouraging the use of open-source software This proposal was not adopted yet.

The proposal suggests that state government corporations and any other public enterprises will not sign contracts for acquiring software unless the software was developed in an open-source model. 

 

5.   Software Contracts

 

5.1.               General principles

 

In general, according to the Israeli Contract Law (General Part) of 1973 (Hereinafter "Contract Law"), a contract can be concluded orally, in writing or in any other way. In addition, the Israeli Contract Law provides autonomy and freedom as to the content of the contract. However, a contract must not be illegal or immoral.

 

There are some different forms of contracts that are related to "Internet contracts". One of them is the Shrink-wrap contract, which is a handy form to use when the software product is purchased and sold through distributors and retailers to the consumer market place. The Shrink-wrap contract is supposed to be an offer by the vendor that is accepted by either the opening of the package or use of the software. Those actions, done by the vendor, can be related as acceptance of the contract by behavior, according to section 6 to the Israeli Contract Law.

The Click-wrap contract, also known as the Click-on contract, can be accepted by clicking the "I Agree" button on the web page. These kind of "Internet contracts" are usually used when the parties are distant or strangers. The problem in Click-wrap contracts is that one can accept a contract by a simple click, without even knowing the meaning of his action. Nevertheless it is a common practice in Israel not to deprive those electronic contracts of legal validity for the only reason that they were accepted in an electronic way because according to the Israeli law a contract can be created in any form therefore a contract can be formed by a shrink wrap license or a click-wrap agreement.

 

One of the most important principles in the Israeli Contract Law is the principle of good faith, as set in sections 12 and 39. According to this principle, if one party does not act in good faith, or acts dishonestly during the negotiation or the execution of the contract, the contract can be terminated. Moreover, according to part B of the Contract Law, a party may terminate the contract if its conclusion was caused by a mistake, mislead, compulsion or despoliation. If the claim for violation of the contract is founded, the claimant is entitled to either enforcement, termination or compensation.

 

It should be noticed that the important legal question of preemption of copyrights owner rights by a contract has do date not been addressed by the Israeli case law or legislation. 

In order to secure the supplier's software rights, it is possible to deposit the source code of the software with an escrow agent. The escrow agreement usually forbids the client to transfer the software rights, or to copy or change the software. According to common escrow agreements, in case the supplier has started liquidation procedures or cannot fulfill his obligations to the client, the source code should be transferred to the client.

 

 

5.2.               International private law – enforcement of foreign court decisions

 

The Israeli Foreign Decisions Enforcement Act of 1958 defines a foreign decision as an injunction issued by a foreign court in a civil case, including compensations. According to section 3 to this Act, Israeli courts can enforce such foreign decisions, subject to 4 requirements: 1) the injunction was given by an authorized court; 2) the injunction is final; 3) the injunction can be enforced in Israel; and 4) the injunction is enforceable in the country it was given. The Act also determines some cases in which the injunction will not be enforced by Israeli courts. For example, in case the injunction was achieved by deceit, or when the foreign court was not authorized. Moreover, foreign decisions will not be enforced by Israeli courts in case they can damage Israel security. 

The Israeli Anti Trust Act of 1988 deals with chain settlements, merging and monopoly. There were no new court decisions regarding software protection in connection with this Act. Section 4 of this Act prohibits a “Restricting Agreement” unless such an agreement got the prior approval of the court or under certain conditions provided by the law. A Restrictive Agreement is an agreement in which at least one of the parties restrict itself in a manner that might prevent or reduce competition in one of the following subjects: price, profit, market distribution, the quantity of assets or services or their quality or their type. A Restrictive Agreement includes a trade union guideline to its members instructing them not to compete with one another. 

 

 

6.   Custom regulation

 

The Israeli Custom Ordinance forbids importing and exporting to Israel any goods that constitute an infringement of copyright or trademark. Therefore, it is possible, according to section 200A to the Israeli Custom Ordinance, to seize any goods suspected of an infringement of copyright or trademark.

 

The owner of a certain intellectual property rights (“the complainant”) can file a request to the custom authorities to delay any goods that apparently constitute an infringement of copyright or trademark. To that request the complainant should attach a self-guarantee to cover all possible damages caused to the importer due to the delay. The amount of the guarantee depends on the estimated value of the goods (estimation is done by Customs). Customs will hold the counterfeit goods for 3 days only [ until receiving a bank guarantee if such guarantee was placed.

 

The customs will notify the importer and the complainant about the delay, and about the complainant’s duty to file a bank-guarantee as a condition for continuing the procedure.

 

After placing the bank guarantee, the complainant has 10 days to file a claim against the importer, or otherwise the Customs authority will release the goods back to its owners (the importer).

 

The above-mentioned legislations were enacted after Israel has signed the TRIPs Agreement as a measure to enforce the protection of intellectual property rights.

 

 

7.   Export – data protection

 

The Articles of the Protection of Privacy, 2000 - The Articles set forth the rights for the transfer of data outside of Israel. The Articles ensure that data shall not be transferred to any country that provides less protection to Privacy issues than Israel. In that regard, Section 1 requires that the privacy law of the destination country for the transfer shall not provide less protection than the protection provided under Israeli law. The law of such a country must have a legal standard for collecting of the data, and such data must be accurate and updated. The right of inspection and security measures must be provided as well. Section 2 of the articles defines that, except for a few restrictions, the consent of the person to whom the data is related must be given in order to transfer the data.

 

8.   Circumvention of technological protection

As of today, the Israeli law does not provide protection against neither against the act of circumvention of technological measures designed to protect intellectual property nor against the trafficking in circumvention devices and services. [21] In this respect Israel is different from The EUCD[22], and from the approach of the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provide protection against the act of circumvention of technological measures as well as against the trafficking in circumvention devices and services.

 

       Address of the Israeli Association of Software Houses

 

·      General Secretary Industry House Tel Aviv 61500, Israel Tel.: 972-3-5128836, 5128787 Fax: 972-3-662026 http://www.iash.org.il/

 

·      Israel Export Institute Electronics and Software Department Director P.O.B. 50084 Tel Aviv 61500, Israel Tel.: 972-3-5142830 Fax: 972-3-5242881 http://www.export.gov.il/

 

·      Israel Venture Capital (IVC) Ramat Aviv Tower 5th floor, 40 Einstein St. P.O. Box 17672 Tel-Aviv 61175, Israel. Tel: +972-3-640-2350
                                                          Fax: +972-3-640-2351   http://www.ivc-online.com/

Literature

Assia, Naomi.                      COMPUTER LAW & PRACTICE 1987-2004

Kozlovski, Nimrod               The computer and the Legal Proceeding 2003

J, Barsade, Esq.                  The Internet and online business law 2000 -2002

Abbreviations

CA Civil Appeal 

CF Civil File

CP            Criminal File

PD            Piskei Din (Judgments)

PM            Psakim Mahoziim (District Judgments)

---