Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Industries, Inc.

Last updated

Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameMicrosoft Corporation v. Dak Industries Incorporated
DecidedOctober 2, 1995
Citation(s)66 F.3d 1091
Case history
Prior action(s)27 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 118 (Denied Microsoft's administrative expense claim)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting William A. Fletcher, Melvin T. Brunetti, and Thomas G. Nelson
Case opinions
Buying a lump sum of software was found to be equivalent to buying a lump sum of physical goods when considering the 'economic realities' of the deal, even if it was sold under a license providing a 'permission-to-use' the intellectual property.

Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. 66 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir 1995) is a court case in which Microsoft contended that in being licensed rights to sell Microsoft Word (Word) software, the then-bankrupt DAK Industries had been granted permission to use this intellectual property, so Microsoft was entitled to receive payments during post-bankruptcy in the form of royalties.

Contents

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, believing that the 'economic realities' of the agreement in which payments for a certain number of copies of Word were made in the form of installments meant that the agreement should be considered as a 'lump sum sale of software units' even if the agreement was called a license that required 'royalties' instead of 'payments'. Microsoft was therefore unable to claim special interest over the bankruptcy claim as it was a transfer of goods in the form of a sale, making it an unsecured creditor. [1]

Background

DAK Industries, a supplier of computer hardware, entered into a license agreement with Microsoft, a software distributor, that granted DAK the rights to distribute and license copies of Microsoft Word on the computers it sold during the term of the agreement. Microsoft provided DAK a master disk, which was used to install Microsoft Word onto the computers DAK distributed. Payment for this license agreement was in the form of a 'royalty rate' of $55 for each copy of Word that was distributed. However, DAK had to make a minimum commitment to Microsoft of $2.75 million to be paid in 5 installments over a one-year period, irrespective of the number of copies DAK managed to sell. DAK was therefore entitled to distribute up to 50,000 units, with any additional units then attracting the $55 charge.

DAK delivered the first three installments to Microsoft. However, they filed for bankruptcy before completing the remaining payments. After bankruptcy, DAK continued to sell copies of Word without making the remaining installment payments. [1]

Microsoft alleged that it was entitled to 'administrative expenses' from DAK to compensate it for the continued use of the license agreement that allowed distribution of its software. [1]

District Court and Bankruptcy Court opinion

The bankruptcy court denied Microsoft's claim on the basis that even though Microsoft had labelled the agreement as royalty payments for the continued use of its intellectual property, it was more like installment payments on the sale of goods. This made the debt owed to Microsoft an unsecured claim. On appeal to the district court, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, stating that Microsoft was not facing any continued expenses in DAK's distribution of Word. Microsoft then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [1]

Opinion of the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit provided several reasons for its belief that the 'economic realities' of the agreement between Microsoft and DAK was about a 'lump sum sale of software' rather than the permission to use the Word intellectual property:

The court found that simply naming the agreement as a license and denoting the payments as royalties did not in fact make it a license in terms of intellectual property. Also the court found that DAK's sales indicate it did not sell all of the units it was entitled to under the agreement. Moreover, the court noted that Microsoft did not have a business relationship with DAK after bankruptcy, therefore granting Microsoft's claim would be unjust to other unsecured creditors. Consequently, the court affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts and denied Microsoft's claim. [1]

Subsequent developments

Other cases

The idea of courts looking at the 'economic realities' of a deal to decide if a transaction is a sale or a 'license to use' was also adopted in SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. When a consumer purchased Adobe software, they received a single copy for which they paid in entirety and the license is valid forever. Adobe argued that consumers were merely given a licence to use the software rather than being sold the software itself. However the court found that, like in DAK, the nature of the transaction indicated the sale of goods and hence the first sale doctrine would apply. [2] In Universal Music Group v. Augusto, the court also looked at the 'economic realities' of the transaction involving UMG distributing promotional music CDs to 'music industry insiders' and found that since UMG provided the CDs with no intention of recovering them, it was a transfer of title, although UMG labeled ('licensed') the CDs with certain constraints on their usage such as limiting resale. Because these constraints are not valid, the defendant was able to sell the promotional CDs under the first sale doctrine. [3]

Criticism

Some have disagreed with the court's founding its opinion on seeing a software license as merely a sale of goods. They argued that DAK was provided with a non-exclusive license to distribute Word—they were only entitled under the license to use the master disk in order to provide additional copies of Word as per a royalty scheme. DAK only created the copies of Word it needed for the duration that it was allowed to use Microsoft's Word master disk. Any payment made by DAK were merely an advancement against potential royalties: a common agreement in book and motion picture licenses. Therefore, contradicting the court's opinion, the way in which DAK was able to sell copies of Word should be seen as a permission to use the intellectual property (use of the master disk) rather than a 'sale of goods' in the way a manufacturer sells a given quantity of goods to a reseller and hence Microsoft should receive royalty payments as per the initial agreement. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">License</span> Legal concept

A license (US) or licence (Commonwealth) is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something.

A royalty payment is a payment made by one party to another that owns a particular asset, for the right to ongoing use of that asset. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard. Put differently, a F/RAND commitment is a voluntary agreement between the standard-setting organization and the holder of standard-essential patents. U.S. courts, as well as courts in other jurisdictions, have found that, in appropriate circumstances, the implementer of a standard—that is, a firm or entity that uses a standard to render a service or manufacture a product—is an intended third-party beneficiary of the FRAND agreement, and, as such, is entitled to certain rights conferred by that agreement.

A hire purchase (HP), also known as an installment plan, is an arrangement whereby a customer agrees to a contract to acquire an asset by paying an initial installment and repaying the balance of the price of the asset plus interest over a period of time. Other analogous practices are described as closed-end leasing or rent to own.

Commercial software, or seldom payware, is a computer software that is produced for sale or that serves commercial purposes. Commercial software can be proprietary software or free and open-source software.

A software license is a legal instrument governing the use or redistribution of software. Under United States copyright law, all software is copyright protected, in both source code and object code forms, unless that software was developed by the United States Government, in which case it cannot be copyrighted. Authors of copyrighted software can donate their software to the public domain, in which case it is also not covered by copyright and, as a result, cannot be licensed.

<i>SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.</i>

SCO v. Novell was a United States lawsuit in which the software company The SCO Group (SCO), claimed ownership of the source code for the Unix operating system. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by asserting a rival claim to ownership of the Unix copyrights. Separately, SCO was attempting to collect license fees from Linux end-users for Unix code through their SCOsource division, and Novell's rival ownership claim was a direct challenge to this initiative. Novell had been increasing their investments in and support of Linux at this time, and was opposed to SCO's attempts to collect license fees from Novell's potential customers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DivX, LLC</span> Video technology company

DivX, Inc. is a privately held video technology company based in San Diego, California. DivX, LLC is best known as a producer of three codecs: an MPEG-4 Part 2-based codec, the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC DivX Plus codec and the High Efficiency Video Coding DivX HEVC Ultra HD codec. The company's software has been downloaded over 1 billion times since January 2003. DivX, LLC's offerings have expanded beyond the codec to include software for viewing and authoring DivX-encoded video. DivX, LLC also licenses its technologies to manufacturers of consumer electronics devices and components used in these devices, of which over 1 billion DivX-enabled devices have shipped worldwide. DivX certifies that these licensed products are able to properly play DivX-encoded video.

SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. was a lawsuit heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2001 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

In software licensing, volume licensing is the practice of using one license to authorize software on a large number of computers and/or for a large number of users. Customers of such licensing schemes are typically business, governmental or educational institutions, with prices for volume licensing varying depending on the type, quantity and applicable subscription-term. For example, Microsoft software available through volume-licensing programs includes Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office.

The DAK Catalog was published by DAK Industries, a discount electronics importer in the United States, and was named after the initials of the company's owner, Drew Alan Kaplan.

<i>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto</i>

Universal Music Group v. Augusto was a federal court case filed by Universal Music Group against Troy Augusto, a man who sold promotional CDs on eBay. UMG claimed that the CDs were their property, and Augusto's sales constituted copyright infringement. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit sided with Augusto, holding that "UMG's distribution of the promotional CDs under the circumstances effected a sale of the CDs to the recipients. Further sale of those copies was therefore permissible without UMG's authorization."

Proprietary software is software that, according to the free and open-source software community, grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.

The bundling of Microsoft Windows is the installation of Microsoft Windows in computers before their purchase. Microsoft encourages original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of personal computers to include Windows licenses with their products, and agreements between Microsoft and OEMs have undergone antitrust scrutiny. Users opposed to the bundling of Microsoft Windows, including Linux users, have sought refunds for Windows licenses, arguing that the Windows end-user license agreement entitles them to return unused Windows licenses for a cash refund. Although some customers have successfully obtained payments, others have been less successful.

<i>Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc.</i> Eastern New York Court Case

Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208, was an Eastern New York District Court decision regarding copyright infringement and breach of license agreement. Microsoft Corp. filed the lawsuit against Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc. and its president, Stanley Furst, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and treble damages. The defendants did not contest the plaintiff's claim that Harmony sold Microsoft's products without any licenses or authorization, or that they sold Microsoft's products stand-alone, which violated Microsoft's license agreement. Instead, the defendants argued that their action was protected by the first-sale doctrine 17 U.S.C §109(a) (1977). After reviewing the facts, the court found that the defendants' action constituted copyright infringement, and that the first-sale doctrine did not apply since the defendants failed to prove that the Microsoft products they sold were lawfully acquired. The court also ruled that the defendants breached Microsoft's software license agreement by selling the products stand-alone.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.

<i>F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records</i>

F.B.T. Productions, LLC, et al. v. Aftermath Records, et al. 621 F.3d 958 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt with how Federal Copyright Law applied to the sales and licensing contracts of music downloads and other downloadable copyrighted material. Specifically, the circuit court ruled that a licensing provision in the contract between F.B.T. Productions and Aftermath Records unambiguously applied to permanent downloads and mastertones offered through third party distributors. After reviewing the First Sale Doctrine and the nature of Aftermath's contracts with its distributors, the circuit court concluded that such downloads constituted a licensing of copyrights rather than a sale, causing Aftermath to pay higher royalties to F.B.T. under their agreement.

Bagdasarian Productions is an American production company founded by Ross Bagdasarian Sr. on February 20, 1961. The company holds the rights to Alvin and the Chipmunks and related intellectual property assets. The company is currently owned and operated in by Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Janice Karman. The company has co-produced many television series, specials, and films and initiated multiple lawsuits to protect the characters.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc., 66 F.3d 1091 Archived 2010-05-17 at the Wayback Machine (9th Cir. 1995).
  2. ↑ SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc., 171 F. Supp.2d 1075 (District Court, CD. California. 2001).
  3. ↑ UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (District Court, CD. California. 2008).
  4. ↑ Brennan, Lorin E., Why Article 2 Cannot Apply to Software Transactions, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, P. 459, 2000.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.