Autodesk Inc & Anor v Dyason

Autodesk Inc and Autodesk (collectively "Autodesk") appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning copyright in computer software. The dispute involved allegations of copyright infringement by Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason, and Peter Dyason (collectively "Dyason").

The High Court was required to determine, among other issues, whether copyright subsisted in certain aspects of Autodesk's computer programs and whether Dyason had infringed that copyright. A key question was the proper application of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), particularly in light of amendments made in 1984, to computer software, and how established copyright principles applied in this context.

The Court considered two fundamental distinctions relevant to copyright law. The first was the distinction between an idea, which is not protected by copyright, and the expression or working out of that idea in a copyrightable work. Autodesk argued that the Full Court had erred by classifying too much of its software as mere ideas rather than as the concrete expression of those ideas. The second distinction, which the Court noted was less frequently articulated but nonetheless present in all copyright cases, was between the copyright work itself and the mechanism used to implement or reproduce it. The Court drew an analogy to musical works, where the musical composition is distinct from the instrument used to play it.