Dyason, M. v Autodesk Inc - [1990] FCA 555

JUDGMENT No. ........ -...... .- 555 J 90

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: MARTIN PATRICK DYASON and
ORS.
Appellants

AUTODESK INC. AND AUTODESK

AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED

Respondents

CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 19 SEPTEMBER 1990
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Autodesk Inc. and Autodesk Australia Pty Limited, hereafter referred to as the applicants ("the applicants"), move the court for a stay of so much of the orders of the Full Court of this Court comprising Lockhart, Sheppard and Beaumont JJ, as set aside injunctive orders made at first instance by Northrop J on 15 September 1989. By virtue of these orders the respondents, Mr and Mrs Dyason and Mr Kelly were restrained from marketing a device known as Auto-Key which the applicants claimed contained a computer programme which infringed their copyright in the programme contained within a device known as the AutoCAD lock. The orders further restrained the respondents from reproducing in any material form the whole or a substantial part, or any part, of what was

AutoCAD lock device or any adaptation thereof or selling or referred to as a computer programme contained within the

letting for hire or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire any article being a reproduction of the whole or a substantial part of the work said to be the computer programme within the AutoCAD lock.

The applicants market in Australia a software programme for computer assisted drafting known as the AutoCAD programme. That programme retails for approximately $5000. It is well known that software programmes may be simply, albeit illegally, copied to the detriment of the owner of the copyright in the so£ tware programme. However, the applicants had invented a device referred to as a "lock" which is described in the judgment of Sheppard J in the full court as being black and rectangular in shape and about 75 millimetres long, 43 millimetres wide and 15 millimetres deep and which at one end contains a plug which fits into the outward or serial port of the computer and at the other end there is a lead which connects the computer to peripheral equipment such as

the screen or printout.

The AutoCAD programme can only be used if the lock is fitted to the computer, thus illegal copies made are of no use unless the person making the copy has also purchased a lock. The lock is sold by the applicants together with the AutoCAD programme as one package and its price is included in the price for the programme. M r Kelly, one of the respondents, invented the device Auto-Key which produces the same result as the applicants' lock and before being restrained from so doing marketed it with the other respondents at a price of around $500. The market for the device is limited to persons who have purchased the AutoCAD software. It is said that there are some 6000 users of the AutoCAD programme to whom the device…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dyason, M. v Autodesk Inc 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 555
Decision Date: 19 Sep 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dyason v Autodesk Inc before Hill J in the Federal Court of Australia involved a dispute over copyright infringement concerning computer software. The applicants, Autodesk Inc. and Autodesk Australia Pty Limited, sought a stay of the Full Court's decision that reversed Northrop J's injunction against the respondents, Mr and Mrs Dyason and Mr Kelly, from marketing a device called Auto-Key. Autodesk claimed that Auto-Key infringed their copyright in the AutoCAD lock, a device necessary for using their AutoCAD software. Northrop J had granted an injunction which was overturned by the Full Court, leading to Autodesk's application for a stay pending a potential appeal to the High Court. The legal issues focused on the interpretation of the Copyright Act 1968 and whether the Auto-Key device constituted an infringement of Autodesk's copyright. Hill J, after considering the discretion required in granting a stay and the principles established in previous cases, concluded that the applicants had demonstrated a significant possibility that their recovery of damages would be rendered nugatory if the appeal were unsuccessful due to the respondents' financial situation. The court granted the stay, allowing the injunction to remain in effect pending the outcome of the applicants' potential appeal to the High Court. The stay was subject to the respondents providing an undertaking as to damages.

Orders