COPYRIGHT - whether either individually or collectively certain commands for use in a computer program themselves constitute a "computer program" within the meaning of s 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) such that use of them as commands in another computer program would constitute an infringement.
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s10 United States Code, s102(b)
POWERFLEX SERVICES PTY LTD v DATA ACCESS CORPORATION
VG 295 of 1996
BLACK CJ, HILL & SUNDBERG JJ MELBOURNE 4 JUNE 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 295 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:POWERFLEX SERVICES PTY LTD
First Appellant
POWERFLEX CORPORATION PTY LTD
Second Appellant
DAVID MEREDITH BENNETT
Third Appellant
MARGARET ANN BENNETT
Fourth Appellant
DEMILEIGH PTY LTD
Fifth Appellant
(First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Cross-Respondents)
AND:DATA ACCESS CORPORATION
Respondent
(Cross-Appellant)
CORAM: BLACK CJ, HILL & SUNDBERG JJ PLACE: MELBOURNE DATED: 4 JUNE 1997
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be allowed in part.
The orders of the primary judge be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered:
(i)that each of the appellants, other than the fourth appellant, be restrained from reproducing in a material form or making an adaptation of the Dataflex Huffman compression table, or a substantial part of that table, in either of the computer programs known as Powerflex or PFXplus, or an adaptation of those programs.
(ii)that each of the appellants, other than the fourth appellant, be restrained from authorising in Australia and without the licence of Data Access any person to do any act, the doing of which by Powerflex would constitute a contravention of the above order.
The matter be remitted to a judge of the Court for determination by way of rehearing whether injunctions should be granted against the fourth appellant in the same terms as the injunctions now granted against the other appellants.
The cross appeal be dismissed.
The parties file brief submissions as to costs within seven days of judgment being delivered.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 295 of 1996
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 Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation [1997] FCA 490
Case
[1997] FCA 490
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court, Powerflex Services Pty Ltd and others appealed against a judgment of a judge of the Court which held them to have infringed the copyright of Data Access Corporation in a computer program known commercially as the "Dataflex program". Data Access cross-appealed against a finding of the primary judge that there had been no infringement of copyright in the error text table used by the parties in their respective programs. The central issue on the appeal and cross-appeal was whether either individually or collectively certain commands used in the Dataflex program referred to as the Dataflex "language" were given copyright protection so that use of them as commands in the Powerflex program, originally named "Powerflex" and subsequently called "PFXplus", would constitute an infringement of the Data Access copyright in the Dataflex program. The court found that copyright did not subsist in the words or commands used in the Dataflex program. The court found that the Huffman compression table used in the Dataflex program was capable of being the subject of copyright and that Powerflex had reproduced the table in its PFXplus program and thus constituted an infringement of copyright. The court found that the error text table used by Data Access in its Dataflex program was not capable of being the subject of copyright and that there had been no infringement of copyright in respect of the PFXplus error text table. The court found that there was no evidence that Data Access had authorised or licensed the appellants to use the Dataflex commands, and that no estoppel or laches was established. The court found that the liability of Dr M Bennett should be remitted to a judge of the Court for determination by way of rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, the orders of the primary judge were set aside, and in lieu thereof it was ordered that each of the appellants, other than Dr M Bennett, be restrained from reproducing in a material form or making an adaptation of the Dataflex Huffman compression table or a substantial part of the said table, in either of the computer programs known as Powerflex or PFXplus or an adaptation of the said programs. The matter was remitted to a judge of the Court for determination by way of rehearing whether injunctions should be granted against Dr M Bennett in the same terms as the injunctions granted against the other appellants. The cross appeal was dismissed.