Source: AI Overview

DRS Rule is exponentially far superior to DLS method, because DRS operates in all three formats of the game of cricket while DLS is confined to one small segment i.e., rain affected one day international games. Yet DLS authors have been granted naming rights while the name of the author of DRS is suppressed. Senaka Weeraratna (Sri Lanka) has claimed authorship but ICC says its man did it nine years (2006) after Weeraratna published his Player Referral concept (1997).

What is the name of the ICC author of DRS which has transformed the game of Cricket and several other sports. What is the reason for this deafening silence and suppression of the name of ICC author of DRS? Has ICC obtained a Patent for DRS? If so, when? This is the question that David Becker asked Senaka Weeraratna. Does ICC own the copyright of DRS? If not, who owns it? ICC must come clean on this matter of DRS ownership. The world is watching.

AI Overview

Based on the information regarding the authorship of the Decision Review System (DRS), the following points address your query:

• Who is the ICC author of DRS?
  The International Cricket Council (ICC) has not officially recognized or named a single individual as the “author” of the DRS. While trials for the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) were initiated in 2006 by the ICC Cricket Committee, the ICC has not publicly credited a specific person with inventing the core “Player Referral” concept.
• The Claim of Senaka Weeraratna
  Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna is widely credited by supporters and several media outlets as the innovator who introduced the ‘Player Referral’ concept in a letter published in The Australian on March 25, 1997, which proposed allowing players to appeal on-field decisions to a third umpire.
• Reason for Silence and Suppression of Authorship
  David Becker, the then Head of Legal at the ICC, argued in a 2010 email to Weeraratna that the idea was published widely in the public domain and therefore did not constitute confidential or proprietary intellectual property owned by Weeraratna. Becker also stated that the ICC committee members who developed the UDRS in 2006 were not aware of Weeraratna’s specific 1997 proposal, a claim challenged by advocates citing the extensive, international publication of the concept years before the ICC trials.
• Has the ICC obtained a patent for DRS?
  There is no public record of the ICC obtaining a patent for the overall DRS system. Weeraratna has argued that the ICC grabbed the idea from the public domain.
• Ownership of Copyright
  Weeraratna claims he holds the moral and economic copyright as the pioneer developer of the ‘Player-Referral’ concept. However, legal opinions mentioned indicate that because the concept was shared widely (e.g., in newspapers) before formal patent registration, enforcing this right has proven difficult, with some views suggesting it now belongs to the public domain.
• The Role of SLC/ICC
  Senaka Weeraratna has requested that the ICC formally recognize his authorship and that Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) pursue the matter, alleging unauthorized use of his concept. 
• https://share.google/aimode/2rfpuVCmuTPqZA8bo

AI Overview

………………………………………………

Patent and Copyright Ownership

• Patents: The ICC has not claimed to hold a patent for the overarching DRS concept. While specific underlying technologies like Hawk-Eye or Hot Spot are patented by their respective private developers (e.g., Sony owns Hawk-Eye), the procedural rule of “Player Referral” is generally considered a “rule of the game,” which is often difficult to patent.
• Copyright: Senaka Weeraratna, through his legal team at Carroll & O’Dea, claims he holds moral and economic copyright based on his original 1997 writings. The ICC denies this, stating that ideas themselves are not protected by law and that the system currently used was developed as an official protocol rather than a licensed work.

Ownership: Currently, the ICC owns the trademark and management rights to the system as it functions within international cricket regulations, but they have admitted in legal correspondence that they do not hold an exclusive “copyright” over the broad concept of a referral system.

Source: AI Overview