Microsoft Corporation v Melgar
[2013] FCCA 344
•24 May 2013
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS v MELGAR | [2013] FCCA 344 |
| Catchwords: COPYRIGHT LAW – Breach of applicant’s copyright in software programs – assessment of compensatory damages under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – compensatory damages of $164, 624 awarded – assessment of additional damages under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – additional damages of $300,000 awarded. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Whether default judgment should be entered pursuant to rule 13.03B of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001(Cth) – default judgment entered pursuant to rule 13.03B of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03B; Civil Dispute Resolutions Act 2004 (Cth), s.4. |
| Microsoft Corporation v TYN Electronics Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2004] FCA 1307; Sullivan v FNH Investments Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 323; |
| First Applicant: | MICROSOFT CORPORATION |
| Second Applicant: | MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED |
| Third Applicant: | MICROSOFT LICENSING, GP |
| Fourth Applicant: | MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORP |
| Respondent: | JOSE ANTONIO CACERES MELGAR |
| File Number: | SYG 2159 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Emmett |
| Hearing date: | 26 March 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 April 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 May 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr Grant Hansen, Holman Webb |
| No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent |
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2159 of 2012
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION |
First Applicant
| MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED |
Second Applicant
| MICROSOFT LICENCING GP |
Third Applicant
| MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORP |
Fourth Applicant
And
| JOSE ANTONIO CACERES MELGAR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Heading 1 style
Introduction
1.The First Applicant is the owner of copyright in numerous computer software programs (“the Microsoft Programs”).
2.The Second Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Applicant and provides marketing and technical support on behalf of the First Applicant in Australia in relation to the Microsoft Programs.
3.The Third Applicant is the worldwide exclusive licensee of the copyright in the Microsoft Programs and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Applicant.
4.The Fourth Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Applicant and operates the Microsoft Store in Australia.
5.The Respondent has operated as a sole trader under an Australian Business Number (ABN) for the periods 5 June 2000 to 15 August 2001, and 17 July 2002 to date. The Respondent has carried on a business as a retailer of computer hardware and software since at least 26 March 2007. In carrying on his business, the Respondent utilised a number of auction websites, though which he acted as a vendor.
6.The Respondent’s business primarily consists of the sale of packaged computer systems, in many instances preloaded with unauthorised versions of the Applicants’ commercially available software.
7.Having become aware of the Respondent’s business, the Applicants undertook investigations. Those investigations included the purchase from the Respondent of copies of unauthorised Microsoft Programs and computer systems which contained unauthorised versions of the Microsoft Programs owned by the Applicants.
8.The Microsoft Programs alleged to be infringed are identified in Annexure A to the Statement of Claim filed on 3 October 2012, a copy of which is annexed to these reasons.
Default judgment against respondent
9.The Applicants approached the Court for the purposes of having the matter set down for a default hearing pursuant to rule 13.03B of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”). The matter was duly set down for default hearing on 13 February 2013.
10.Rule 13.03B(2)(c) of the FCC Rules provides, relevantly, that if a proceeding is commenced by an application supported by Statement of Claim, and the applicant appears entitled to the relief sought on the Statement of Claim and the Court is satisfied that it has power to grant the relief sought, the Court may give judgment against the respondent for the relief sought.
11.Rule 13.03B of the FCC Rules is as follows:
“Orders on default
(1) If an applicant is in default, the Court may order that:
(a) the proceeding be stayed or dismissed as to the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant; or
(b) a step in the proceeding be taken within the time limited in the order; or
(c) if the applicant does not take a step in the time mentioned in paragraph (b)—the proceeding be stayed or dismissed, as to the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant.
(2) If a respondent is in default, the Court may:
(a) order that a step in the proceeding be taken within the time limited in the order; or
(b) if the claim against the respondent is for a debt or liquidated damages—grant leave to the applicant to enter judgment against the respondent for:
(i) the debt or liquidated damages; and
(ii) if appropriate—costs; or
(c) if the proceeding was commenced by an application supported by a statement of claim or the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings—give judgment against the respondent for the relief that:
(i) the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim; and
(ii) the Court is satisfied it has power to grant; or
(d) give judgment or make any other order against the respondent; or
(e) make an order mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) to take effect if the respondent does not take a step ordered by the Court in the proceeding in the time limited in the order.
(3) The Registrar must enter judgment for the debt or liquidated damages, costs and interest against the respondent as specified in leave granted under paragraph (2)(b), without giving notice, or further notice, to the respondent, if the applicant has filed in the Registry:
(a) an affidavit, or affidavits, proving:
(i) service of the application claiming judgment for the debt or liquidated damages; and
(ii) that the respondent is in default; and
(b) an affidavit for the debt or liquidated damages in accordance with the approved form.
(4) Unless the Court otherwise orders, if a respondent to a cross‑claim is in default:
(a) a judgment or decision on any claim, question or issue in the proceeding on the originating process; or
(b) any other cross‑claim in the proceeding;
is binding as between the cross‑claimant and the respondent to the cross‑claim, to the extent that the judgment or decision is relevant to any claim, question or issue in the proceeding on the cross‑claim.
(5) In subrule (4):
decision includes a decision by consent.
judgment includes a judgment by default or by consent.
(6) The Court may make an order of the kind mentioned in subrule (1), (2) or (4), or any other order, or may give any directions, and specify any consequences for non‑compliance with the order, that the Court thinks just.”
12.On 3 October 2012, the Applicants filed an Application and a Statement of Claim.
13.On 18 October 2012, the Applicants filed an Amended Application and an Amended Statement of Claim. The only amendment was to join Microsoft Regional Sales Corp as the Fourth Applicant.
14.On 10 December 2012, the Court made orders for substituted service upon the Respondent based on evidence of unsuccessful attempts to serve the Respondent. The Court also made orders directing the Respondent to file and serve a Defence. In the event that no documents were filed by the Respondent within the specified time, the Applicants could approach the Court for a default hearing pursuant to r.13.03B of the FCC Rules.
15.On 5 April 2013, a Further Amended Application and a Further Amended Statement of Claim were filed and served in accordance with the orders of substituted service made by me on 10 December 2012. In the Further Amended Application and the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Applicant claimed further compensatory damages based on evidence filed and served by the Applicants prior to the filing of the Further Amended Application and the Further Amended Statement of Claim, but which had not been the subject of any claim prior to 5 April 2013.
16.In the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Applicants seek the following orders:
i)The Respondent pay to the Applicants damages of $162,624 under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (“the Copyright Act”).
ii)The Respondent pay to the Applicants damages of $300, 000 under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act.
iii)An order that the Respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained from infringing the First Applicant’s copyright in the Microsoft Programs by reproducing or authorising the reproduction of the Microsoft Programs or a substantial part thereof without the licence of the First Applicant. In these orders, Microsoft Programs which have been wholly reproduced without the licence of the First Applicant are referred to as Infringing Programs.
iv)An order that the Respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents, or otherwise howsoever, be restrained from infringing the Microsoft Programs by importing infringing copies of the Microsoft Programs into Australia for the purposes of selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire, the Infringing Programs, distributing the Infringing Programs or exhibiting the Infringing Programs by way of trade, without license from the first applicant.
v)Otherwise, the proceeding commenced by way of application on 3 October 2012, is dismissed.
vi)The Respondent to pay the Applicants’ costs of the proceedings on a party/party basis.
17.No Response or document has been filed by or on behalf of the Respondent.
18.I accept as accurate the Applicants’ written submissions in considering the standing of the Applicants, the jurisdiction of the Court and the infringements alleged against the Respondent. Those submissions are as follows:
“Standing of the Applicants
23. An action for infringement of copyright may be brought by the owners of the copyright (see section 115(1) of the Copyright Act).
24. Section 126 of the Copyright Act provides that:
“In an action brought by virtue of this part:
(a) Copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to which the action relates if the defendant does not put into issue the question whether copyright subsists in the work or other subject matter; and
(b) where the subsistence of the copyright is established, the plaintiff shall be presumed to be the owner of the copyright if he or she claims to be the owner of the copyright and the defendant does not put in issue the question of his or her ownership.”
25. The Respondent in these proceedings has not put in issue the question of copyright or its ownership and the Court can therefore rely on the presumptions in s.126 of the Copyright Act. Relevantly, Microsoft claims to be the owner of copyright in the Microsoft Programs it alleges were unlawfully copied (vis Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010).
The Jurisdiction of the Court
27. Part 5 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory basis for these proceedings.
28. Section 115(1) of the Copyright Act relevantly provides that:
“Subject to this Act, the owner of copyright may bring an action for an infringement of the copyright.”
29. Section 115(2) of the Copyright Act relevantly provides that:
“Subject to this Act, the relief that a Court may grant in an action for an infringement of copyright includes an injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the Court thinks fit) and either damages or an account of profits.”
30. Section 115(4) of the Copyright Act relevantly provides that:
“Where in an action under this section:
(a) An infringement of copyright is established; and
(b) The Court is satisfied it is proper to do so having regard to:
(i) The flagrancy of the infringement; and
(ii) The need to deter similar infringements of copyright; and
(iii) The conduct of the defendant after the act constituting the infringement or, if relevant, after the defendant had allegedly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright; and
(iv) Whether the infringement involved the conversion of a work or other subject matter from hardcopy or analogue form into a digital or other electronic machine readable format; and
(v) All other relevant factors.
The Court may, in assessing damages for the infringement, award such additional damages as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.”
31. The Court’s jurisdiction to award damages under s.115(2), additional damages under s.115(4) and injunctive relief under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act is therefore enlivened by an infringement of copyright.
32. Further, s.14 of the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) states that:
“In every matter before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia must grant, either:
(a) absolutely; or
(b) on such terms and conditions as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia thinks just;
all remedies to which any of the parties appears to be entitled in respect of a legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by him or her in the matter, so that, as far as possible:
(c) all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined; and
(d) all multiplicity of proceedings concerning any of those matters may be avoided.”
Infringement of Copyright
33. Section 31(1) of the Copyright Act relevantly provides that:
“For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right:
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form…”
34. Section 36(1) of the Copyright Act provides:
“Subject to this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.”
35. Section 38(1) of the Act provides that:
“Subject to Division 3, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, in Australia, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright:
(a) sells, lets for hire, or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire, an article; or
(b) by way of trade exhibits an article in public;
if the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the making of the article constituted an infringement of the copyright or, in the case of an imported article, would, if the article had been made in Australia by the importer, have constituted such an infringement.”
36. Section 38(3) provides that in s.38 of the Copyright Act, “article” includes a reproduction or copy of a work or other subject matter, being a reproduction copy in electronic form.
19.The Further Amended Statement of Claim pleads that the Respondent has been a retailer on websites using the following user names from whom Infringing Programs were bought:
(a)In respect of the website in the period 6 July 2011 to 26 July 2012
(ii)“Galaxy 2011 le ” in the period 26 July 2012 onwards
(iii)“pandaonline09”
(b)In respect of the website “mash456711” (refer to the affidavit of Maree Constable sworn 5 December 2012.
20.The Further Amended Statement of Claim pleads that, without the licence of the First Applicant or the Third Applicant, the Respondent reproduced in a material form or authorised the reproduction in a material form of the whole or a substantial part of one or more of the Microsoft Programs. Further, without a license the Respondent has, in the course of carrying on business from time to time, sold or offered for sale and distributed or supplied unauthorised programs of Microsoft Programs.
21.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicants appear entitled to the relief sought in the Further Amended Applicant and the Further Amended Statement of Claim and that the Court has power to grant the relief sought. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Court has power to give judgment against the Respondent for the relief sought in accordance with r.13.03B of the FCC Rules.
Evidence of Respondent
22.The Applicants read the following affidavits in this proceeding:
a)Affidavit of Simone Lanyon sworn 6 September 2012;
b)Affidavit of Benjamin Poynting sworn 27 September 2012;
c)Affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012;
d)Affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 28 September 2012;
e)Affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 19 October 2012;
f)Affidavit of David John Budd sworn 2 November 2012;
g)Affidavit of Ronald George Keith Matthews sworn 2 November 2012;
h)Affidavit of Maree Constable sworn 7 November 2012;
i)Affidavit of Maree Constable sworn 5 December 2012;
j)Affidavit of Benjamin Poynting sworn 6 December 2012;
k)Affidavit of Giselle Brasier sworn 6 December 2012;
l)Affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 7 December 2012;
m)Affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 8 January 2013;
n)Affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 7 February 2013.
23.Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that all the evidence was duly served upon the Respondent.
Conduct of the Respondent
24.The Respondent is the registered owner of the ABN 40 534 622 688 (refer to paragraph 13 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 7 February 2013) and trades from Dubbo NSW 2830.
25.In light of the evidence before me, I make findings and draw the inferences contended for by the Applicants in accordance with the following summary of facts referred to by the Applicants in their written submissions, filed on 22 April 2013:
“39. The respondent sold to the applicants four computer systems on the following dates:
(a) An Intel Quad Core i5 computer system on 19 June 2012 from the respondent’s eBay account “mash456711”;
(b) An Intel i7 computer system on 27 September 2012 from the respondents eBay account “galaxy2011le”;
(c) An Asus E450 laptop on 12 October 2012 from the respondent’s eBay account “pandaonline09”;
(d) An Intel i5 computer system on 15 October 2012 from the respondent’s Quicksales account “mash456711”.
40. The ABNs evidenced on the invoices for each of the four purchases set out in paragraph 39 above are as follows:
(a) Purchase on 19 June 2012 – ABN 40 534 628 668;
(b) Purchase on 27 September 2012 – ABN 40 534 628 668;
(c) Purchase on 12 October 2012 – ABN 40 534 624 668; and
(d) Purchase on 15 October 2012 – ABN 40 534 628 668.
41. None of the ABNs referred to (above) are valid, however I note that each of the ABNs are substantially identical to the ABN registered to the respondent; only one digit has been altered in each of those ABNs. It appears, therefore, that the ABN appearing on the invoices identified above are merely typographical errors.
42. Further, each of the purchases were dispatched from Dubbo NSW 2830, being the respondent’s main business location.
43. The identity for the account holder of the vendor’s bank account for each of the four purchases set out above are as follows:
(a) In respect of the purchase on 19 June 2012:
Name: Tony Melgar
Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 06 3135
Account: 10446114
(b) In respect of the purchase on 27 September 2012:-
Name: Tony Melgar
Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 06 3135
Account: 10446114
(c) In respect of the purchase on 12 October 2012:-
Name: Tony Caceres
Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 06 3175
Account: 10394965
(d) In respect of the purchase on 15 October 2012 payment was made, via PayPal, to Jose Antonio Caceres Melgar.
44. The bank account details for the purchase on 19 June 2012 and the purchase on 27 September 2012 are identical.”
26.Having regard to the following:
a)all of the purchases originated from Dubbo NSW 2830;
b)the identity of accountholders set out above;
c)the registration of the ABN 40 534 622 668 to Jose Antonio Caceres Melgar;
d)the primary place of business for ABN 40 534 622 668 being Dubbo NSW 2830; and
e)the similarity of the ABNs referred to above to the ABN 40 534 622 668;
I am satisfied that each of the sales referred to above was carried out by the Respondent.
27.In addition to the four computer systems identified above, the Respondent’s eBay feedback for the eBay seller “mash456711/galaxy2011le” for the period 24 August 2011 to 30 August 2012 evidenced the sale of at least 164 computer systems by the Respondent.
28.Based on the evidence before me, I infer that all of the computer systems sold by the Respondent had both a Windows 7 operating system and a Microsoft Office 2010 application. I accept the Applicants’ submission that the Court can draw this inference on the basis that the Respondent was a dealer in personal computers and would not have a saleable product in the absence of both a Windows operating system and an Office application (see Microsoft Corporation v TYN Electronics Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2004] FCA 1307 per Stone J at [39]).
29.Based on the evidence before me, I also accept that the systematic infringement of the Applicants’ copyright by the Respondent was done with the intention of deriving commercial benefit. Further, on the balance of probabilities, I find that all 164 of the computer systems sold by the Respondent and evidenced in the Respondent’s eBay history were installed with unauthorised copies of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 together with DVD ROMs containing an unauthorised copies of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 and unauthorised copies of certificates of authentication.
Section 115(2) compensatory damages
30.Pursuant to s.115(2) of the Copyright Act1968 (Cth), damages or an account of profits can be awarded to a successful applicant in circumstances where a Court has found that an applicant’s copyright has been infringed. The Applicants now seek compensatory damages pursuant to s.115(2) of the Copyright Act.
31.By reason of the failure of the Respondent to participate in any way at all in this proceeding, the Respondent is deemed to have made admissions in accordance with the evidence filed by the Applicants, and accordingly, I make findings to that effect.
32.Based on the evidence before me, I accept the written submissions of the Applicants and make findings and draw inferences in accordance with the following submissions:
“63. The assessment of the licence fee test is based upon an inference that the Court may make; that presented with a choice between paying the licence fee and not using the work the infringer would have paid the licence fee (Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69).
64. In these proceedings, Microsoft Windows 7 and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 are an operating system and an application respectively, both are necessary components for computers to function. Accordingly, the Applicants submit that an inference can be drawn that consumers would have purchased genuine copies from authorised distributors if infringing copies had not been available (Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics (2000) 49 IPR at [55]).
…
66. The Fourth Applicant operates the Microsoft Store located at the URL The Fourth Applicant is the exclusive licensee of the First Applicant to sell computer programs manufactured by the First Applicant in Australia (refer to paragraphs 4 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 19 October 2012 and paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 6 December 2012).
67. Accordingly, the Applicants submit that the licence fee lost by the Applicants in respect of the Microsoft Programs, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional 2010 is evidenced by the licence fee that would have been payable by a consumer purchasing the relevant Microsoft Program from the Microsoft Store (Autodesk Inc & Ors v Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] FMCA 14 at [109]).
68. Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate is available for sale for $469 at the Microsoft Store Australia (refer to page 4 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 19 October 2012).
69. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 is only available through Microsoft’s Volume Licensing programs and not available for normal retail sale. Retail customers who are seeking to purchase an equivalent Microsoft Office application would necessarily purchase Microsoft Office Professional 2010 (refer to paragraph 8 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 19 October 2012). This was an inference which was accepted by Judge Driver in Microsoft Corporation v Tram [2010] FMCA 480 at [49] to [50].
70. Microsoft Office Professional 2010 is available for sale for $499 at the Microsoft Store Australia (refer to page 6 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 19 October 2012).
71. The Applicants submit that the compensatory damages that they are entitled to be awarded under section 115(2) of the Act is the amount of $162,624, which is calculated as follows:
Infringing Sales
RRP for Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (refer to paragraph 0 above) RRP for Office Professional Plus 2010 (refer to paragraph 0 above) Total 19 June 2012 $469 $499 $968 27 September 2012 $469 $499 $968 12 October 2012 $469 $499 $968 15 October 2012 $469 $499 $968 164 computers systems referred to in paragraph 29 above $76,916 ($469 x 164) $81,836 ($469 x 164) $158,752 Total $162,624”
33.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that judgement should be entered for the Applicants in the liquidated amount of compensatory damages of $162,624, pursuant to s.115(2) of the Copyright Act.
Section 115(4) additional damages
34.The Court is empowered to make to make an award of additional damages under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act where the Court is satisfied that it is proper to do so.
35.Section 115(4) of the Copyright Act provides that:
Where, in an action under this section:
(a) an infringement of copyright is established; and
(b) the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, having regard to:
(i) the flagrancy of the infringement; and
(ia) the need to deter similar infringements of copyright; and
(ib) the conduct of the defendant after the act constituting the infringement or, if relevant, after the defendant was informed that the defendant had allegedly infringed the plaintiff's copyright; and
(ii) whether the infringement involved the conversion of a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analogue form into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form; and
(iii) any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement; and
( iv) all other relevant matters;
the court may, in assessing damages for the infringement, award such additional damages as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
36.The Applicants concede that the factor identified in s.115(4)(ii) of the Copyright Act is not a relevant consideration in the present proceedings.
a) Flagrancy of the Infringement
37.I accept the written submissions of the Applicants in their entirety in relation to the flagrancy of the Respondent’s infringement of the First Applicant’s copyright and make findings in accordance with those submissions and the evidence referred to therein. Those submissions are as follows:
“77. The deliberate infringement of copyright for gain constitutes deliberate and flagrant conduct (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 223 per Conti J).
78. The Respondent first came to the attention of the Applicants for alleged copyright infringement in March 2007 (refer to paragraph 48 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
79. The Respondent was informed on 26 March 2007, that the practice of “hard disk loading” was an infringement of Microsoft’s copyright. No response was received from the Respondent in respect of that letter (refer to paragraph 48 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
80. On 31 July 2008, the Respondent was served with a letter by the Applicant’s solicitors demanding that the Respondent undertake to cease infringing Microsoft’s copyright. No response was received in respect of that correspondence (refer to paragraph 49 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
81. A further letter was written to the Respondent on 15 August 2008 demanding a response to the letter dated 31 July 2008. No response was received from the Respondent in respect of that correspondence (refer to paragraph 49 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
82. On 17 June 2012, a customer of the Respondent reported to Microsoft’s Australian Anti-Piracy team the purchase of a desktop computer from the Respondent installed with an unauthorised copy of Microsoft Office Professional 2010 (refer to paragraph 65 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
83. On 24 July 2012, the Applicant’s solicitors demanded that the Respondent undertake to refrain from infringing the Applicant’s copyright and requested a settlement conference in accordance with the applicants obligations under section 4 of the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) (refer to paragraph 66 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
84. On 8 August 2012, the Applicants sent a further demand to the Respondent requiring a response to the letter dated 24 July 2008 in accordance with the Applicants obligations under section 4 of the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth). No response was received from the Respondent in respect of this letter (refer to paragraph 66 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
85. The Respondent continued to trade even after being put on notice of his infringement of the Applicants’ copyright (refer to 67 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012). In particular, the purchases from the Respondent on 12 October 2013 and 15 October 2012 occurred after the Applicants commenced proceedings against the Respondent on 3 October 2012 and after the Applicants first attempted to serve the Respondent on 10 October 2012 (refer to the affidavit of David John Budd sworn 2 November 2012).
86. The Respondent has sold at least 168 computer systems with unauthorised copies of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 in the period 24 August 2011 to 30 August 2012.
87. The Respondent has supplied computer systems with counterfeit Certificates of Authenticity and product key labels (refer to paragraph 58 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012; and paragraphs 15, 16, 30, 31, 45 and 46 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 6 December 2012).
88. The Respondent has supplied computers with unauthorised reproductions of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 (refer to paragraph 60 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012; and paragraphs 20, 36 and 50 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 6 December 2012).
89. The Respondent has made unauthorised reproductions of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 (refer to paragraph 60 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012; and paragraphs 20, 36 and 46 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 6 December 2012).
90. The Respondent’s eBay listings all evidence the installation of Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 on computer systems sold by the Respondent.”
38.Having regard to the matters set out above, I find that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a flagrant infringement of the First Applicant’s copyright for financial gain.
b) Need to Deter Future Infringement
39.I accept the submissions of the Applicants in relation to the need to deter future infringements and make findings in accordance with those submissions and the evidence referred to therein. Those submissions are as follows:
“92. The Court has accepted that the need to “deter the Respondents, as well as other putative abusers, from committing infringements of copyright” is a consideration when determining whether damages should be awarded under section 115(4) (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 260 per Conti J).
93. The distribution of unlicensed Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 compromises the integrity of Microsoft’s licensing and distribution system (see paragraph 63 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed on 27 September 2012).
94. Furthermore, such infringements pose a threat to the business viability of legitimate dealers in Microsoft Programs, whose survival is essential to Microsoft’s effective marketing of Microsoft programs in Australia (refer to paragraph 63 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed on 27 September 2012).
95. The Respondent has clearly taken the matter of selling hard disk loaded computer systems and the unauthorised reproduction of Microsoft programs onto DVD rewriteable discs lightly and has not co-operated in any way to resolve these proceedings. The Applicants have serious concerns about the Respondent engaging in further infringing conduct.”
40.I accept that the need to deter the Respondent as well as others from infringing the First Applicant’s copyright is an important consideration in determining damages under s.115(4), particularly in relation to maintaining the integrity of the Microsoft Programs. Section 115(4) damages are intended to be in part punitive in nature (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 281 per Conti J).
c) Conduct of the Respondent Subsequent to the Infringement
41.I accept the submissions of the Applicants in relation to the conduct of the Respondent subsequent to the infringement and make findings in accordance with those submissions and the evidence referred to therein. Those submissions are:
“97. The Respondent continued to sell computer systems containing unauthorised copies of the Microsoft Programs after he was put on notice by the Applicants on 24 July 2012. Indeed, the Respondent continued to sell computer systems containing unauthorised copies of the Microsoft Programs after the Applicants attempted to serve the Respondent on 10 October 2012.
98. The Applicants commenced proceedings against the Respondent on 3 October 2012.
99. The Respondent actively avoided service in the period 10 October 2012 to 24 October 2012 (refer to the affidavits of David John Budd sworn 2 November 2012 and Ronald George Keith Matthews sworn 2 November 2012).
100. The Respondent did not appear at the first return date on 10 December 2012.
101. On 10 December 2012, the Applicants obtained orders for substituted service against the Respondent. Further, by Court orders dated 10 December 2012, the Respondent was required to file and serve a Defence within 28 days after service of the orders dated 10 December 2012. The Respondent failed to do so.
102. The Respondent did not appear when the matter was before the Court for default judgment on 13 February 2013.
103. Further, the Respondent did not appear when the matter was before the Court for further directions on 26 March 2013.
104. In accordance with the substituted service orders dated 10 December 2012, the Respondent was served with the Further Amended Statement of Claim on 5 April 2013.
105. As at the date of these submissions, the Respondent has not filed a Notice of Appearance nor a Defence to these proceedings.
106. Accordingly, the Respondent’s conduct in these proceedings justifies a substantial award of additional damages:-
(a) The Respondent actively avoided service of the originating documents (refer to the affidavit of David John Budd sworn 2 November 2012 and the affidavit of Ronald George Keith Matthews sworn 2 November 2012);
(b) The Respondent has now deleted his email addresses to avoid service of documents (refer to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the affidavit of Alvin Ng affirmed 7 February 2013).
(c) The Respondent has not appeared in these proceedings, nor has he served any response in these proceedings. Essentially, the Respondent has not in any way sought to defend himself against the claims made by the Applicants in these proceedings.
107. The Courts have accepted that a further factor in deciding whether or not the damages under section 115(4) of the Act should be awarded for flagrancy is, in particular, the inadequacy and shortcomings if the Respondent’s responses in light of the evidence adduced by the Applicants (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 258 per Conti J).
108. Further, the failure of the Respondent to participate in these proceedings has prevented the Applicants from obtaining discovery from the Respondent in respect of past and potential further infringements. The Court has accepted that this is a further factor in determining the award of damages under section 115(4) of the Act (refer to Microsoft Corporation v Leonidas [2010] FMCA 986 at [40]).
109. The conduct of the Respondent in these proceedings can also be described as “deplorable” The Respondent has never appeared in these proceedings and has not filed or served any documents in these proceedings. Further, the Respondent has made no promise to cease infringing the Applicants copyright (refer to Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Advanced Beauty & Body Care Ltd & Ors [2012] FMCA 486 at [73]).”
42.Most recently, the Court has accepted that the Respondent's conduct in ignoring the proceedings is a relevant factor to consider in the assessment of damages under s.115 (4) (see Microsoft Corporation v Tram [2010] FMCA 480 at [84] per Judge Driver).
d) Any Benefit Accrued to the Respondent as a Result of the Infringement
43.I accept that the infringement allowed the Respondent to make a sale without purchasing software from authorised distributors (refer to paragraph 62 of the affidavit of Giselle Brasier affirmed 27 September 2012).
44.Further, I accept that it is clear that the Respondent has used the supply of the Microsoft Programs as a selling point in order to entice the sale of the computer systems.
45.I also accept that in the context of the very competitive computer industry, the market reacts to very small pricing differences (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 259 per Conti J). I accept that the Respondent infringed the First Applicant’s copyright for his own financial gain and, as such, a benefit has certainly accrued to the Respondent to the detriment of the Applicants.
e) Other Relevant Matters
46.I accept that a material consideration of the Court in deciding damages under s.115(4)(iii) of the Copyright Act is that, whilst infringements of computer programs are easy to carry out, computer software infringements are difficult to detect (see Autodesk v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69 per Wilcox J at 21; Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 at 263 per Conti J).
47.I accept that the Applicants faced difficulties in detecting the infringements carried out by the Respondent, and, as such, that factor should be considered by the Court when deciding damages under s.115(4)(iii) of the Copyright Act.
48.In summary, the flagrancy of the Respondent’s conduct, the benefit that the Respondent has accrued, given the commercial context in which the infringements occurred, and the need to deter such conduct in the future are matters that require the imposition of substantial additional damages.
Quantification of Additional Damages
49.The Court has a broad discretion in relation to the quantum of additional damages (refer to Microsoft Corporation v Ezy Loans Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1135 at [96]).
50.The Court has held that “the circumstances, giving rise to and surrounding copyright infringement, must always vary infinitely and it is not desirable to adopt any principle which results in the broad general discretion carefully formulated in section 115(4) being fettered in any arithmetic or mechanical way” (refer to Raben Footwear Pty Ltd c Polygram Records Inc (1997) IPR 417 at 433).
51.Further, the Courts have held that there need not be any proportionality between the amount of damages awarded under s.115(2) and the amount awarded under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act. (refer to Sullivan v FNH Investments Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 323). However, the Court can draw assistance from the evident margins between compensatory damages and additional damages in adopting a principled approach to the assessment of damages (see Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1522 per Conti J at [265]).
52.In written submissions, the Applicants made the following submissions in relation to case law which I accept is relevant to the Court’s assessment of additional damages:
“Microsoft Corporation v Ezy Loans Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1135
This case is analogous to the present proceedings as First Respondent had flagrantly infringed Microsoft’s copyright through the provision of a large number of “hard disk loaded” computers installed with an unauthorised copy of a Microsoft operating system and/or Microsoft application, which is similar to the conduct of Melgar in these proceedings.
The First Respondent carried on the business of a retailer of computer software and hardware. The First Respondent sold or provided for rental, a substantial number of computers installed with unauthorised Microsoft software.
The Second Respondent was the sole director of the First Respondent.
The Respondents in these proceedings provided consumers with “hard disk loaded” computers, being computers installed with an unauthorised copy of a Microsoft operating system and/or Microsoft application. Those computers were also sold without any manuals, end user licence agreement, a certificate of authenticity and the original CD-ROMs.
The Court assessed the damages under section 115(2) of the Act (assessed under the licence fee test), to be $240,625. We note that the sales made by the First Respondent in this matter are similar to quantities sold by Melgar in the present proceedings.
In respect of damages under section 115(4) of the Act, the Court held that the following factors:-
· the Respondents derived considerable pecuniary benefit from their infringing conduct;
· that the Respondents’ conduct was flagrant;
· the Respondents failure to observe the Court’s orders in respect of discovery. In that regard, the Court noted that “it is important to more than the applicants that copyright infringers are not encouraged to think that by ignoring court proceedings they can escape the consequences of calculated infringement of the rights of others in the pursuit of profits”.
warranted a substantial award of additional damages.
We note that there is a large degree of overlap in the factors considered by the Court in its determination under of additional damages under section 115(4) of the Act, in particular the pecuniary benefit derived by the respondents from the infringing conduct and flagrancy.
In these proceedings, additional damages of $350,000 was awarded to the Applicants.
Microsoft v TYN Electronics Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2004] FCA 1307
This case is analogous to the present proceedings, as Melgar has, in addition to the sale of hard disk loaded computers, also provided customers with unauthorised reproductions of Microsoft operating systems and applications.
The First Respondent carried on the business of a wholesaler of computer software and hardware.
The Second Respondent was the sole director of the First Respondent.
The Respondents in these proceedings sold and offered for sale, backup CDs which contained unauthorised copies of the Microsoft Programs, Microsoft Windows ME, Microsoft Works 6.0 and Microsoft Money 2001. The Court assessed the damages under section 115(2) of the Act (assessed under the licence fee test), to be $386,000. In the present proceedings, Melgar has also provided customers with unauthorised copies of Microsoft Programs reproduced onto DVD ROMs.
In respect of damages under section 115(4) of the Act, the Court held that the following factors:-
· the Respondents conduct involved deliberate and calculated infringement of copyright and disregard of the applicant’s rights ;
· the Respondent obtained a benefit from the infringement by virtue of the commercial context in which the infringement occurred; and
· the need for deterrence of such conduct;
warranted a substantial award of additional damages.
We note that there is a large degree of overlap in the factors considered by the Court in its determination under of additional damages under section 115(4) of the Act, in particular the deliberate and calculated infringement of copyright by Melgar, the commercial benefit derived by Melgar and the need for deterrence.
In these proceedings, additional damages of $700,000 was awarded to the Applicants.
Microsoft Corporation v Glostar [2003] FCA 0210
This case is analogous to the present proceedings as the proceedings involved the sale of both “hard disk loaded” computers as well as media containing unauthorised reproductions of Microsoft Programs. Further, the respondent in these proceedings were also wholly unresponsive, like Melgar in the present proceedings.
The First Respondent was a retailer of computer hardware and software.
The Second Respondent was the sole director of the First Respondent.
The Respondents in these proceedings sold both “hard disk loaded” computers as well as CD-ROMs containing unauthorised reproductions of Microsoft Programs. This is similar to the present circumstances.
The Court assessed damages under section 115(2) of the Act (assessed under the licence fee test) to be $4,375.
In these proceedings, the Respondents failed to appear and the Court was deprived of direct evidence of the sales made by the Respondents.
The Court accepted that it was appropriate to grant additional damages under section 115(4) as:-
· the Respondents deliberately proceeded to breach the Applicant’s copyright in flagrant disregard of the Applicant’s rights;
· there is little doubt that it is likely that the number of infringing copies which the respondents have supplied would be substantial.
The Court accepted the Applicants’ submission that it should be inferred that the Respondents sold at least 10 desktop computers installed with unauthorised Microsoft software over a period of 91 weeks
In so inferring, the Court held that the damages under section 115(4) to be a sum of $291,625 (comprising the licence fees for the unauthorised Microsoft software inferred to have been sold by the respondent).
Microsoft Corporation v Mayhew t/as Rodney’s Computers [2008] 75 IPR 166
This case is analogous to the present proceedings as the infringement also involved the sale of “hard disk loaded” computers.
The Respondent was a retailer of computer hardware and software.
In these proceedings, the Respondent had sold a computer that was “hard disk loaded” with unauthorised copies of Microsoft software. The Court assessed damages under section 115(2) of the Act (assessed under the licence fee test) to be $1,126.35.
In respect of damages under section 115(4) of the Act, the Court held that the following factors:-
· the Respondents conduct involved deliberate and calculated infringement of copyright and disregard of the applicant’s rights ;
· the Respondent obtained a benefit from the infringement by virtue of the commercial context in which the infringement occurred; and
· the need for deterrence of such conduct;
warranted a substantial award of additional damages.
In these proceedings, additional damages of $12,000 was awarded to the Applicants, this is in contrast to the $1,126.35 damages awarded under section 115(2).
Microsoft Corporation v Tram [2010] FMCA 480
This case is analogous to the present proceedings as the infringement also involved the sale of “hard disk loaded” computers. We note that the respondent, in these proceedings, like Melgar has failed to participate in the proceedings.
The Respondent was a retailer of computer hardware and software.
In these proceedings, the Respondent had sold a computer that was “hard disk loaded” with unauthorised copies of Microsoft software. The Court assessed damages under section 115(2) of the Act (assessed under the licence fee test) to be $907.25.
In determining section 115(4) damages, the Court considered the following factors:-
· the flagrancy of the infringement;
· the need for deterrence;
· the standard practice of the Respondent; and
· the fact that the Respondent completely ignored these proceedings.
Having regard to the above, the Court held that the circumstances warranted a substantial award of additional damages.
In these proceedings, additional damages of $30,000 was awarded to the Applicants, this is in contrast to the $907.25 awarded under section 115(2).”
53.I accept the Applicants’ written submissions that the factual circumstances of this proceeding are analogous to Microsoft v TYN and Microsoft Ezy Loans where the Court awarded additional damages approximately one-and-a-half times and two times that of the compensatory damages awarded under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act. The Applicants submit that an appropriate amount of additional damages, having regard to the factors identified in s.115(4) of the Copyright Act and the cases referred to above would be at least $300,000.
54.The Applicants submit that such additional damages would be appropriate to provide deterrence to the Respondent’s infringement and indicate the Court’s disapproval of the conduct of the Respondent. I accept those submissions.
55.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that, having regard to the need for specific deterrence, the contumelious conduct of the Respondent in ignoring this proceeding and the flagrancy of the infringements, as well as the need for general deterrence, and for the reasons referred to above, an appropriate amount of additional damages is $300,000.
Proposed Orders
56.In the circumstances, the following orders should be made:
i)The respondent pay to the applicants damages of $162,624 under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act.
ii)The respondent pay to the applicants damages of $300, 000 under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act.
iii)An order that the Respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained from infringing the First Applicant’s copyright in the Microsoft Programs by reproducing or authorising the reproduction of the Microsoft Programs or a substantial part thereof without the licence of the first applicant. In these orders, Microsoft Programs which have been wholly reproduced without the licence of the First Applicant are referred to as Infringing Programs.
iv)An order that the Respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents, or otherwise howsoever, be restrained from infringing the Microsoft Programs by importing infringing copies of the Microsoft Programs into Australia for the purposes of selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire, the Infringing Programs, distributing the Infringing Programs or exhibiting the Infringing Programs by way of trade, without license from the first applicant.
v)Otherwise, the proceeding commenced by way of Application and Statement of Claim filed on 3 October 2012, is dismissed.
vi)The Respondent to pay the Applicants’ costs of the proceedings on a party/party basis.
Restraining orders
57.Orders should also be made against the Respondents restraining the Respondent from further infringing the First Applicant’s copyright in the identified Microsoft Programs and restraining the Respondent from infringing the First Applicant’s copyright in the identified Microsoft Programs by importing Infringing Programs into Australia for the purpose of sale or hire.
I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett
Associate:
Date: 24 May 2013
Annexure A to Microsoft & Ors v Melgar [2013] FCCA 344
Microsoft Programs
All versions of the following computer programs and associated manuals and documentation (including versions created or released subsequent to the date hereof):
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Excel 2000
Microsoft Excel 2002 Standard Edition
Microsoft Excel 2003
Microsoft Excel 2007
Microsoft Excel 2010
Microsoft Excel 2001 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Excel 2004 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Excel 2008 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Excel 2010 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Excel Students & Teachers 2003
Microsoft Excel Students 2006
Microsoft Excel Macintosh 2004
Microsoft Exchange Conferencing Server
Microsoft Exchange Server – Enterprise
Microsoft Exchange Server – Enterprise 2003
Microsoft Exchange Server – Enterprise 2007
Microsoft Exchange Server – Enterprise 2010
Microsoft Exchange Server – Standard
Microsoft Exchange Server – Standard 2003
Microsoft Exchange Server – Standard 2007
Microsoft Exchange Server – Standard 2010
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Office 98 for Macintosh
Microsoft Office Professional
Microsoft Office 2000 Standard
Microsoft Office Standard 2003
Microsoft Office 2000 Developer
Microsoft Office 2000 Developer Tools
Microsoft Office 2000 Premium
Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business Edition
Microsoft Office 2001 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Office LCS Enterprise 2005
Microsoft Office LCS Standard 2005
Microsoft Office Macintosh 2004
Microsoft Office Macintosh 2004 Student and Teacher
Microsoft Office Macintosh Professional 2004
Microsoft Office Student 2006
Microsoft Office Professional 2003
Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003
Microsoft Office Student and Teacher 2003
Microsoft Office Proofing Tools Standard Edition
Microsoft Office Proofing Tools 2003
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2010
Microsoft Office Home and Business 2010
Microsoft Office Professional 2010
Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010
Microsoft Office Professional 2013
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2013
Microsoft Office Home and Business 2013
Microsoft Office X for Mac Professional Edition
Microsoft Office X for Mac Standard Edition
Microsoft Office XP Standard Edition
Microsoft Office XP Professional Edition
Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007
Microsoft Office Professional 2007
Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007
Microsoft Office Small Business 2007
Microsoft Office Standard 2007
Microsoft Office Ultimate 2007
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2010
Microsoft Outlook 2000
Microsoft Outlook 2002 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 2003
Microsoft Outlook 2007
Microsoft Outlook 2010
Microsoft Outlook Students & Teachers 2003
Microsoft Outlook Students 2006
Microsoft PowerPoint
Microsoft PowerPoint 2000
Microsoft PowerPoint 2001
Microsoft PowerPoint 2007
Microsoft PowerPoint 2010
Microsoft PowerPoint Standard Edition 2002
Microsoft PowerPoint Students & Teachers 2003
Microsoft PowerPoint Student 2006
Microsoft PowerPoint 2004 for Mac
Microsoft PowerPoint 2008 for Mac
Microsoft PowerPoint X
Microsoft Project Professional 2010
Microsoft Project Server 2010
Microsoft Project Standard 2010
Microsoft SQL Server
Microsoft SQL Server Development
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise Runtime
Microsoft SQL Server Programmer’s Toolkit
Microsoft SQL Server Standard
Microsoft SQL Server Standard Runtime
Microsoft SQL Server Developer Edition
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition
Microsoft SQL Server Workgroup Edition 2000
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide
Microsoft SQL Server 2005
Microsoft SQL Server 2008
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2
Microsoft Visio 2010
Microsoft Windows Server Enterprise 2003
Microsoft Windows Server for Small Business 2003
Microsoft Windows Server Standard 2003
Microsoft Windows Server 2008
Microsoft Windows Server Web Edition 2003
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services
Microsoft Windows Services for Unix 3.0
Microsoft Windows Small Business Server Premium 2003
Microsoft Windows Small Business Server Premium 2008
Microsoft Windows Small Business Server Standard 2003
Microsoft Windows Small Business Server Standard 2008
Microsoft Windows
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Microsoft Windows 8
Microsoft Windows 8 Professional
Microsoft Windows 95
Microsoft Windows 98
Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Microsoft Windows 2000 Internet Connector
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Microsoft Windows for Workgroups
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
Microsoft Windows NT
Microsoft Windows NT Server
Microsoft Windows NT Server – Enterprise
Microsoft Windows NT Server – Terminal
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Microsoft Windows XP Media Centre Edition
Microsoft Windows Vista Business
Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word 2001
Microsoft Word 2002
Microsoft Word 2003
Microsoft Word 2007
Microsoft Word 2010
Microsoft Word Student 2006
Microsoft Word Students & Teachers 2003
Microsoft Word Macintosh 2004
Microsoft Word 98 Macintosh Edition
Microsoft Works
Microsoft Works 6
Microsoft Works 7.0
Microsoft Works 8.0
Microsoft Works 9.0
Microsoft Works 2000
Microsoft Works Suite
Microsoft Works 2001
Microsoft Works 2004 Standard edition
Microsoft Works 2005 Standard edition
Microsoft Works 2006 Standard edition
0
10
4