The court recently awarded a software company almost $600,000 in a case involving the illegal copying of its software, sending a clear message to copyright infringers.
Ezy Loans Pty Ltd is a company that sells and rents second-hand computers. Over several years the company, under the control of its director, copied Microsoft software onto the computers without a licence from Microsoft. The director had also acted in this manner as a sole trader. Microsoft took them both to task in the recent case of Microsoft Corporation and others v Ezy Loans Pty Ltd and Another  FCA 1135.
The court found Ezy Loans and its director guilty of infringing Microsoft’s copyright, of unauthorised use of Microsoft’s trade mark and of misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act.
The court initially issued an injunction to prevent the conduct from continuing. Then, in awarding damages for copyright infringement, the court used the ‘going royalty rate test’, which calculates the figure that Microsoft would have earned had Ezy Loans paid the standard licence fees being charged by Microsoft at the time. This amounted to $240,625 in damages.
Under the Copyright Act, the court also has the discretion to award additional damages if the facts of the case warrant it. In this case, the court noted that Ezy Loans and its director displayed a flagrant disregard for Microsoft’s rights, that they acted in a manner that was deliberate and deceitful and that they profited considerably from their infringement. In a significant move, the court decided to award $350,000 in additional damages—almost one and half times the amount of the original damages award. Furthermore, because the director was so closely involved in the conduct and because he had acted alone at one stage, he was held personally liable for $300,000 of that amount.
This is an interesting example of the kinds of damages available for copyright infringement. It also shows that, in extreme cases, the court is not afraid to come down hard on infringers and hold directors personally liable for their conduct.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The issue of recording telephone calls was recently considered in the Federal Court in Furnari v Ziegert  FCA 1080.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).