Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Limited [2000] FCA 1852
COPYRIGHT – copyright in computer software – infringement – counterfeit copies obtained by investigators and under Anton Piller orders – copies of software sold consistently at below market rates – inference that these copies were also counterfeit – liability of joint tortfeasors – whether director and general manager procured or directed infringements
TRADE MARKS – marks in respect of software, computer mice and computer manuals – infringement – infringing products obtained by investigators and under Anton Piller order – liability of joint tortfeasors – whether director and general manager procured or directed infringements
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether sale of products which infringed copyright and trade marks of applicant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct – likely assumptions by purchasers as to quality of goods, guarantees by applicant and quiet enjoyment of infringing products – whether director or general manager were persons involved in misleading or deceptive conduct
DAMAGES – liability under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 115(2) – whether “licence fee” approach appropriate – liability under s 115(4) – flagrancy of infringement
INJUNCTIONS – whether injunctions in broad terms should be granted against “dishonest” or “untrustworthy” respondents
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS v GOODVIEW ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED (ACN 077-222-096) (trading as GOLDEN SQUARE COMPUTER WHOLESALES CO) & ORS N 145 of 1999
BRANSON J SYDNEY 15 DECEMBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 145 of 1999
BETWEEN:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION FIRST APPLICANT
MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED SECOND APPLICANT
MICROSOFT LICENSING, INC THIRD APPLICANT
AND:
GOODVIEW ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED (ACN 077-222-096) (trading as GOLDEN SQUARE COMPUTER WHOLESALES CO) FIRST RESPONDENT
KENG LIU SECOND RESPONDENT
GOLDEN SQUARE COMPUTERS PTY LIMITED (ACN 085-340-781) THIRD RESPONDENT
KENT TSUI (also known as NGAN FUNG TSUI) FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants bring in short minutes of order which reflect these reasons for decision.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is…
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.
Continue reading Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1852
Case
[2000] FCA 1852
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Microsoft Corporation, a software developer, filed a case against Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd, a computer hardware retailer, for breach of copyright in the Federal Court of Australia. Microsoft alleged that Goodview infringed its copyright by selling computer hardware that incorporated Microsoft software without proper licensing. The dispute centred on whether Goodview's sales of computers containing Microsoft software were authorised by Microsoft and whether the software was properly licensed.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Goodview's actions constituted a breach of Microsoft's copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the sale of computers containing Microsoft software without explicit authorisation from Microsoft constituted an infringement of copyright. The court also considered whether the terms of any existing licence agreements between Microsoft and Goodview, if any, permitted the sale of computers with Microsoft software installed.
The court found that Goodview's actions did constitute an infringement of Microsoft's copyright. The court held that the sale of computers with Microsoft software installed was not authorised by Microsoft, as no proper licensing agreements were in place. The court further found that the software was not properly licensed for the manner in which it was installed and sold by Goodview. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Microsoft, finding that Goodview had indeed infringed Microsoft's copyright. The court granted Microsoft an injunction preventing Goodview from further selling computers with Microsoft software installed without proper authorisation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicants bring in short minutes of order which reflect these reasons for decision.