Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Marks, Rodney David & Anor [1995] FCA 1027

Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Marks, Rodney David & Anor [1995] FCA 1027

The Court found that none of the alleged breaches of court orders were proved to the criminal standard required for contempt, due to lack of cogent evidence that unauthorised copies were reproduced or supplied, absence of proof of vicarious authorisation, and insufficient proof of intentional or wilful disobedience by Rodney Marks.

Parties
Applicant: Microsoft Corporation; Applicant: Microsoft Pty Limited; Applicant: Autodesk Inc; Applicant: Autodesk Australia Pty Limited; Applicant: WordPerfect Corporation; Applicant: WordPerfect Pacific; Applicant: Lotus Development Corporation; Applicant: Lotus Development Pty Limited; Applicant: Ashton-Tate Corporation; Applicant: Ashton-Tate Pty Limited; Respondent: Rodney David Marks; Respondent: Carol Joyanne Marks
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Restraining Orders, Copyright Infringement, Authorisation and Vicarious Liability, Civil and Criminal Contempt, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Intellectual Property Contempt of Court Breach of Restraining Orders Copyright Infringement Authorisation and Vicarious Liability Civil and Criminal Contempt Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microsoft Corporation

Applicant

Microsoft Pty Limited

Applicant

Autodesk Inc

Applicant

Autodesk Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

WordPerfect Corporation

Applicant

WordPerfect Pacific

Applicant

Lotus Development Corporation

Applicant

Lotus Development Pty Limited

Applicant

Ashton-Tate Corporation

Applicant

Ashton-Tate Pty Limited

Applicant

Rodney David Marks

Respondent

Carol Joyanne Marks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breach of court orders prohibiting unauthorised reproduction and supply of computer programs occurred
  2. 2 Whether respondent authorised or countenanced the alleged conduct
  3. 3 Whether contempt was 'wilful and flagrant disobedience' or 'blatant defiance'

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that none of the alleged breaches of court orders were proved to the criminal standard required for contempt, due to lack of cogent evidence that unauthorised copies were reproduced or supplied, absence of proof of vicarious authorisation, and insufficient proof of intentional or wilful disobedience by Rodney Marks.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for contempt dismissed
  • Parties to be heard on costs