Unbelievable statements in GPL related case in the Supreme Court of Mauritius

I've recently received some documents regarding a court case at the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

The plaintiff is a company called Linux Solutions Ltd. in Mauritius. It seems to be covering an alleged breach of an NDA between a contracted freelancing developer and a company in Mauritius. That contractor (the defendant) has apparently published some of the work he had done while contracting for the plaintiff.

While none of that seems to be clearly connected with the GPL, what is extremely disturbing is the sworn affidavit / oath by one of the executives of the plaintiff. It says things like:

5. Licenses of open-source software like "Linux" and "Asterisk" have no copyright restrictions which in effect puts no restrictions on their use or distribution. As a consequence, any work which is derived from the open source software as conceptualized, created, installed and managed, by the Applicant becomes the ownership of the Applicant.

6. In the light of the above, therefore, the applications, configuration files and features so developed by the Applicant are the sole property of the Applicant, make up the knowledge base of the Applicant, make the basis of its business operations, and are highly confident in nature. The applications, configurations and features have been built and acquired by the Applicant through important capital investments and manpower over a period of time.

So let me phrase this more clearly: Somebody, under oath is stating at the Supreme Court, that GPL-Licensed software (which the Linux kernel definitely is), has no copyright restrictions? And that any derived work is the sole property of whoever created the derivative? What kind of pot are they smoking in Mauritius?

If there's anyone in the Free Software legal community interested in filing some kind of legal document to the Supreme Court of Mauritius to clarify this issue, feel free to contact me for more details on the case. No matter whether the defendant has broken some NDA, I think it's unacceptable to see such ridiculous claims being made at a Supreme Court.

In case you don't believe it, here are some scanned samples: