Microsoft Corp v Business Boost Pty Ltd

Microsoft Corp sought relief against Business Boost Pty Ltd for copyright infringement, specifically regarding the storage and reproduction of software on computer hardware. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the storage of Microsoft's software on computer hard disk drives and RAM constituted an infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Court had to interpret the definition of "material form" as it pertains to the storage of software, and assess whether the storage in both permanent and temporary storage mediums constituted a reproduction of the software.

The central legal issue was whether the storage of software on a computer's hard disk drive and RAM constituted a reproduction that infringed copyright. Microsoft argued that the storage of its software on both hard disk drives and RAM constituted a reproduction in material form, which infringed the copyright in the software. Business Boost contended that storage in RAM did not constitute a reproduction as it was not "fixed" in a material form for more than a transitory period. The Court had to consider whether the storage in RAM, being ephemeral, could still be considered a reproduction under the Act, and whether the definition of "material form" included such ephemeral storage.

The Court found that the definition of "material form" in the Act was broad and intended to cover various forms of storage, including ephemeral storage in RAM. It relied on the Explanatory Memorandum for the Copyright Amendment Bill 1984, which indicated that the definition was meant to be inclusive of future storage technologies. The Court also considered relevant United States authority, particularly MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc, which held that loading software into RAM constituted a reproduction. The Court concluded that the storage of software on both hard disk drives and RAM constituted a reproduction under the Act, and thus an infringement of copyright.

The Federal Court of Australia found in favour of Microsoft, holding that the storage of its software on both hard disk drives and RAM constituted a reproduction in material form, and therefore infringed the copyright in the software. The Court rejected the argument that storage in RAM was not a reproduction because it was not "fixed" in a material form for more than a transitory period. The Court's interpretation of "material form" and its consideration of United States authority led to the conclusion that ephemeral storage in RAM could still constitute a reproduction. Microsoft was granted the relief it sought, including an injunction, damages, and an account of profits.