Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

Re: AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND AUTODESK, INC.
And: CHARLES CHEUNG
No. G566 of 1987
FED No. 121
Copyright
(1990) AIPC para 90-665

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Wilcox J.(1)
CATCHWORDS

Copyright - Disposal by respondent of "pirate" copies of computer programs produced by applicants - "Pirate" copies imported from overseas and distributed free of charge to purchasers of computer hardware sold by respondent - Infringement of copyright conceded - Assessment of damages - Claim for compensatory damages based on net return to applicants if programs had been purchased from them - Difficulties in assessing compensation on this basis - Claim for additional (exemplary) damages - Discusssion of relevant factors - Damages assessed to cover both compensatory and additional damages and apportioned between applicants.

Copyright Act 1968 ss.37, 38, 115

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 4:4:1990

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr A Panna

Solicitors for the Applicants: Stephens Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: JE Armfield

Solicitors for the Respondent: Paul Wells and Co

ORDER

1. Judgment be entered in favor of the first applicant against

the respondent in the sum of Thirty thousand dollars

($30,000).

2. Judgment be entered in favor of the second applicant against

the respondent in the sum of Twenty thousand dollars

($20,000).

3. The respondent pay to the applicants their costs of this proceeding.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an action for breach of copyright. Autodesk Inc, the second applicant, creates computer programs which it distributes in Australia through a subsidiary company, Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd, the first applicant. As he now concedes, Charles Cheung, the respondent, has infringed the applicants' copyright and the sole matter requiring determination by the Court is the amount of damages payable by the respondent.

The facts

  1. The applicants first became aware of the respondent's activities in October 1987. At that time an unrelated computer software company, HST Technology Pty Limited, received certain information regarding Mr Cheung. This evidence led it to believe that Mr Cheung was in the habit of supplying copies of programs marketed by HST Technology free of cost to purchasers of computers sold by him. That company arranged for a consultant, Mr JA Quigley, to contact Mr Cheung in the guise of a person interested in acquiring a computer. On 12 October 1987, in company with an associate, Mr Robert Lim, Mr Quigley went to premises in the Sydney suburb of Ryde where Mr Cheung conducted his business. These premises were part of his home. Mr Cheung demonstrated certain computer hardware. During the course of these demonstrations Mr Quigley expressed an interest in acquiring some software. Mr Cheung replied:
    "The computer is no good without the
    programs. I can give you whatever programs
    you wish. They are pirated programs and it is
    illegal. As long as you keep quiet about it I
    can let you have whatever you want as a gift
    if you buy…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1990] FCA 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd and Autodesk Inc, the applicants, brought an action against Cheung, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants alleged that the respondent had infringed their copyright by importing and distributing unauthorised copies of their computer programs. The respondent conceded the infringement but contested the quantum of damages claimed by the applicants.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of damages for copyright infringement. The applicants sought compensatory damages, which they claimed should be based on the net return they would have received had the programs been purchased from them. The applicants also sought additional (exemplary) damages. The court had to determine the appropriate method for assessing both compensatory and additional damages and how they should be apportioned between the applicants.

In assessing damages, the court noted the difficulty in determining the net return to the applicants had the programs been legitimately purchased. Consequently, the court opted to assess damages to cover both compensatory and additional damages. It apportioned the total damages between the applicants based on their respective contributions to the creation of the infringing programs. The court found that Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd should receive $30,000 and Autodesk Inc should receive $20,000. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.

The court's final orders included entering judgment in favour of Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd for $30,000 and Autodesk Inc for $20,000, along with an order for the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in favor of the first applicant against

the respondent in the sum of Thirty thousand dollars

($30,000).

2. Judgment be entered in favor of the second applicant against

the respondent in the sum of Twenty thousand dollars

($20,000).

3. The respondent pay to the applicants their costs of this proceeding.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.