CASE OF THE WEEK

The appellant/plaintiff ('appellant'), Microsoft Corporation ('Microsoft'), was a globally recognised and renowned company and the copyright owner of a wide range of computer related products, including, amongst others, computer programmes. The respondent/defendant ('respondent') was a company incorporated in Malaysia dealing with computers and computer accessories. Microsoft commenced this action against the respondent for infringing Microsoft's copyright by reproducing and marketing pirated copies of Microsoft's computer programmes without Microsoft's consent, licence or permission. The respondent denied that it had infringed the appellant's copyright and added that since its incorporation, it had always purchased genuine software from the appellant's authorised dealers. Before the High Court, the appellant sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from infringing its copyright and claimed for general damages. The learned judge had directed that the case be heard by way of affidavit evidence. Accordingly, the parties filed and served their respective affidavits. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the appellant's action. Hence, this appeal.

Held (dismissing appeal with costs)

Per Linton Albert JCA (majority):

(1) The appellant had relied principally on the affidavit of one Jonathan Selvasegaram ('JS'), the appellant's corporate attorney. JS clearly did not depose to his personal knowledge of the circumstances of the alleged infringement but relied instead on some dubious reports which were unsigned or unattributed to any particular person. In the circumstances, JS's affidavit fell far short of establishing that the respondent had infringed the appellant's copyright (S & F International Ltd v. Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd; refd). (para 2)

(2) Since the infringement of copyright attributed to the respondent remained unestablished, there was nothing for the respondent to rebut. The appellant's contention that the respondent's failure to produce rebuttal evidence was somehow of assistance to the appellant's case was clearly misconceived. Thus, there was no merit in the appeal herein. (para 3)

Per Hishamudin Mohd Yunus JCA (dissenting):

(1) The learned trial judge had based his judgment solely on JS's affidavit and had ignored the affidavit evidence of the appellant's other witnesses, ie, the affidavit of computer technician, Izanee Ariffin, who had captured screen shots as shown in his report to substantiate Microsoft's claim of infringement of copyright against the respondent. Further, the trial judge erred when he made the finding that the private investigator, Nur Ezza, had purchased a computer without a DOS and hard disk from the respondent. The affidavit evidence by the respondent (the affidavit of one Te Peng Keat) that the computer was sold to Nur Ezza without a hard disk was incredible as it did not make sense. It is elementary that the very essence of a physical computer is the hard disk/hard drive, ie, where computer data is stored. If the trial judge had examined the appellant's evidence in its entirety, in all probability, he would have made a finding in favour of the appellant. (paras 21, 29, 31 & 32)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu/plaintif ('perayu'), Microsoft Corporation ('Microsoft'), adalah sebuah syarikat yang diiktiraf dan terkenal serta pemilik hak cipta pelbagai jenis produk berkaitan komputer, termasuk, antara lain, program-program komputer. Responden/defendan ('responden') adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia berurusan dengan komputer dan aksesori komputer. Microsoft memulakan tindakan ini terhadap responden kerana telah melanggar hak cipta Microsoft dengan membuat salinan dan pemasaran salinan-salinan cetak rompak program-program komputer Microsoft tanpa keizinan, lesen atau kebenaran Microsoft. Responden menafikan bahawa ia telah melanggar hak cipta perayu dan menyatakan bahawa sejak penubuhannya, ia telah sentiasa membeli perisian tulen daripada peniaga-peniaga yang dibenarkan perayu. Di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi, perayu telah menuntut injunksi bagi menghalang responden dari melanggar hak ciptanya dan telah menuntut ganti rugi am. Yang arif hakim telah mengarahkan kes didengar melalui keterangan afidavit. Pihak-pihak seterusnya memfailkan dan menyerahkan afidavit-afidavit masing-masing. Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak tindakan perayu. Oleh itu, rayuan ini.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Linton Albert HMR (majoriti):

(1) Perayu telah bergantung terutamanya pada afidavit seorang Jonathan Selvasegaram ('JS'), iaitu peguam korporat perayu. JS dengan jelasnya tidak mendeposkan pengetahuan peribadi beliau mengenai keadaan-keadaan dakwaan pelanggaran tetapi sebaliknya bergantung kepada beberapa laporan yang diragui yang tidak ditandatangani atau tidak berpunca daripada mana-mana pihak tertentu. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, afidavit JS tidak berjaya membuktikan bahawa responden telah melanggar hak cipta perayu (S & F International Ltd v. Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd; dirujuk).

(2) Oleh kerana pelanggaran hak cipta oleh responden tidak berjaya dibuktikan, responden tidak perlu menangkis apa-apa. Hujahan perayu bahawa kegagalan responden mengemukakan keterangan bantahan telah membantu kes perayu adalah jelas tersilap. Oleh itu, tiada merit di dalam rayuan ini.

Oleh Hishamudin Mohd Yunus HMR (menentang):

(1) Yang arif hakim bicara telah mengasaskan penghakimannya semata-mata pada afidavit JS dan telah mengabaikan keterangan afidavit saksi-saksi perayu yang lain, seperti, afidavit juruteknik komputer, Izanee Ariffin, yang telah menangkap gambar-gambar skrin seperti yang ditunjukkan di dalam laporan untuk menyokong dakwaan pelanggaran hak cipta Microsoft terhadap responden. Seterusnya, hakim bicara khilaf apabila beliau membuat dapatan bahawa penyiasat persendirian, Nur Ezza, telah membeli sebuah komputer tanpa DOS atau cakera keras daripada responden. Keterangan afidavit responden (afidavit seorang Te Peng Keat) bahawa komputer telah dijual kepada Nur Ezza tanpa cakera keras adalah mustahil kerana ia tidak masuk akal. Ia adalah asas bahawa intipati fizikal komputer adalah cakera keras/hard drive iaitu di mana data komputer disimpan. Jika hakim bicara telah meneliti keterangan perayu secara keseluruhan, dalam segala kebarangkalian, beliau akan membuat dapatan yang memihak kepada perayu.

Case(s) referred to:

S & F International Ltd v. Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd [1985] 2 CLJ 228; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 280 FC (refd)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Kenneth St James (Harleen Kaur with him); M/s Michael Chai & Co

For the respondent - Annou Xavier (Phang Kian Chung with him); M/s Azri, Lee Swee Seng & Co

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Suit No: D5(IP)-22-445-2008]

Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin