In this case, StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd alleged that Mr Tony Rotondo infringed copyright in the manual and screen display of the company’s betting software. The company did not assert that copyright in the computer program had been infringed. It asserted that, in the process of replicating the functionality of the company’s software, Mr Rotondo infringed copyright in “the work which appears on a computer screen generated by its computer program”.

The Supreme Court of Queensland observed that the screen display was merely a series of lines, headings and coloured backgrounds. The Court found that it was not a table or compilation of the constantly changing information that it was used to display. Further, even if it were a table or compilation, it lacked originality for copyright protection.

The Court found that the manual had been infringed by Mr Rotondo. An injunction was awarded to restrain Mr Rotondo from reproducing and selling the manual. Damages awarded amounted to $760,000, calculated with reference to the cost of decoder machines purchased by Mr Rotondo to supply to new customers of his betting software.

Judgment by default had earlier been obtained against the second defendant.

More:

StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd v Rotondo & Anor [2008] QSC 181 (19 August 2008)

Back to top | Permalink

On 26 August 2008, the High Court granted IceTV special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court's decision in Nine Network v IceTV.

The transcript of the special leave application indicates that the High Court will not necessarily follow the House of Lords decision in Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273. Counsel were asked to be ready to provide assistance to the Court to “to deal with this matter thoroughly without any reticence in starting at the bottom” and “to be familiar with the academic writing in this field”.

The case is due to be heard on 13 and 14 October 2008.

More:

• transcript of special leave application

• Nine Network Australia Pty Limited v IceTV Pty Limited [2008] FCAFC 71 (8 May 2008): Full Court of the Federal Court

• Nine Network v IceTV [2007] FCA 1172 (9 August 2007): decision at first instance

• Nine Network v IceTV [2008] FCA 925 (27 June 2008): Bennett J's orders following the Full Court decision

Back to top | Permalink

On 9 September 2008, the Federal Court made orders consistent with its earlier finding that Rockefeller Management Corporation and the company’s director, Dallas Gibson, infringed copyright in the practice examinations of the three applicants.

On the question of the remedies available, the Federal Court ordered that the respondents are liable to pay compensatory damages and additional damages. The Court also ordered that they are liable to pay damages for conversion, unless the Court is satisfied that the award of compensatory and additional damages is a sufficient remedy.

The assessment of damages will follow the discovery of information relating to the infringing copies, including data on the number of times they were downloaded from the Icarus College website.

The respondents were restrained from further infringing copyright and were ordered to pay costs.

Boyapati v Rockefeller Management Corporation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1375 (9 September 2008)

Back to top | Permalink

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal from a Supreme Court of Queensland decision on patent inventorship, breach of confidence and indirect copyright infringement.

Foxworth had contended that Polwood and a Mr Rampton had indirectly infringed copyright in drawings by a Mr Kemp of apparatus for the production of potting mix. Foxworth submitted that copying could be inferred from the similar features appearing in the replica apparatus and from the fact that Mr Rampton had had access to the drawings.

However, the court upheld the decision that no inference of indirect copying could be drawn. While Mr Rampton had intended to develop the ideas inherent in the apparatus, he had done this without infringing copyright in the drawings. The court also held that the contrasting features of the replica apparatus provided a basis for the trial judge to form the view that it did not indirectly reproduce Mr Kemp’s drawings.

Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9 (18 February 2008)

Back to top | Permalink

In response to an application by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) on behalf of its member artists and record labels, the Copyright Tribunal at first instance – PPCA under section 154(1) of the Copyright Act [2007] ACopyT 1 (10 July 2007) – ordered an increase in the licence fees payable by nightclub venues and dance party operators. The rate for licensed sound recordings played in nightclubs will be raised from $0.07 per person to $1.05 per person and, for dance parties, from $0.20 to $3.05 per person.

The appeal to the Full Federal Court was dismissed.

Australian Hotels Association v Copyright Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 37 (13 March 2008)

Back to top | Permalink

Norm Engineering claimed that Digga had infringed copyright in drawings of parts of an assembled industrial bucket used with bobcats.

At first instance, the court found that five of the seven drawings had the requisite originality, and that of these, all but one were indirectly reproduced by Digga. The court also held that the design/copyright overlap provisions in the Act did not apply to excuse Digga’s copying, except in relation to Norm Engineering’s drawing for “pivot arms”, which was held not to embody a “design”.

On appeal, the court held that the primary judge was entitled to find the requisite degree of originality for copyright to subsist in the drawings and that a causal chain leading to infringement was established. However, Digga successfully argued that the copyright/design overlap defence was available in relation to the “pivot arms”.

Digga Australia Pty Ltd v Norm Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 33 (12 March 2008)

More:

• Norm Engineering v Digga (decision at first instance).

Back to top | Permalink