Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning alleged copyright infringement of computer software. The parties involved were Data Access Corporation, the owner of the copyright in the "Dataflex" system, and Powerflex Services Pty Ltd, the alleged infringer. The dispute centred on whether individual commands within a computer language, a data table used for data compression, and macros constituted copyrightable subject matter or infringed existing copyright.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether individual words used as commands in one computer language, which performed identical functions in another language, were themselves "computer programs" for the purposes of copyright subsistence. Secondly, the court had to consider whether a collection of such commands constituted a "substantial part" of a computer program, and what test applied to determine substantiality in this context. Thirdly, the court examined whether a macro in one program was an "adaptation" of a macro with the same functionality in another program, and the meaning of "version" in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Finally, the court considered whether a computer data table used for data compression was an "original literary work" and whether a process designed to replicate such a table by examining its output constituted a "reproduction" of the table.

The High Court, in its reasoning, drew upon established principles regarding copyright in computer programs, particularly the definition of a "computer program" as a "set of instructions". The court affirmed that a computer program refers to the entire set of instructions that cause a computer to perform a function, rather than individual commands or words that act as triggers for those instructions. The court held that individual commands, even if they bear resemblance to English words and have identical functions across different programs, are not themselves computer programs. Furthermore, the court considered the concept of "substantial part" in relation to computer programs, indicating that it involves a qualitative as well as a quantitative assessment. The court also addressed the "Huffman compression table," finding that the process of examining its output to replicate it did not constitute a reproduction of the table itself.

The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed with costs.