SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v PAUL OWEN & ORS (2002)

[Donald ramsbottom]

A case from Lawtel on copy circumvention. As alaways ignore if you don't
like law. I am trying to get the full transcript as this precis does not
make it clear what the position of decrypting rather than copy
circumvention is. If I get it I'll post it.



SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v PAUL OWEN & ORS (2002) 

Court:
Ch.D Patents Court (Jacob J) 23/1/2002 

Subject:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - DAMAGES 

Descriptors:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT : COMPUTER GAMES : HARDWARE : SOFTWARE : PLAYSTATION 
2 : ACCESS CODES : COPY-PROTECTION : REGION CONTROLS : MICROCHIPS : MESSIAH 
DEVICE : BACKUP COPIES : SWAPS : NON-INFRINGING USE : LAWFUL USE : BREACH OF 
COURT ORDERS : INJUNCTIVE RELIEF : ADDITIONAL DAMAGES : S.97(2) AND S.296
COPYRIGHT, 
DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1996 : CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 SI 1998/3132 : CPR 
PART 24 : SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Summary:
A microchip sold by the third defendant, which circumvented the
copy-protection 
and region control technologies in the claimant's PlayStation 2, gave rise 
to an infringement of the claimant's copyright even though the microchip was 
capable of lawful, non-infringing uses. The sale of the microchip in breach 
of a court order entitled the claimant to seek additional damages. 

Text:
Application by the claimant ('Sony') for summary judgment pursuant to CPR
Part 24
 on its claim for copyright infringement. Sony was the manufacturer of the 
PlayStation 2 games console. CDs and DVDs sold by Sony and/or its licensees 
for use with the console were protected with copy-protection and
region-control 
technologies. The third defendant ('D') had imported and sold in the United 
Kingdom a microchip to be inserted into the PlayStation 2, known as the
"Messiah 
device", which was able to circumvent those technologies, thereby allowing 
copy CDs and DVDs, or CDs and DVDs purchased outside the territory in which 
a particular console had been sold, to be played on any console. D's sales 
had, in part, been made in breach of a court order. Sony contended that: (i) 
D's device infringed its rights under s.296 Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988
; and (ii) D's sales of the device in breach of the court order entitled it 
to additional damages under s.97(2) of that Act. As to (i), D contended that 
the device allowed both lawful and unlawful use to be made of the console
and/or 
the CDs and DVDs such that no breach of s.296 arose. 

HELD: (1) It was irrelevant that D's device might be used for non-infringing 
purposes. Section 296 spoke of "any device or means specifically designed or 
adapted to circumvent ... copy-protection". That was exactly what D's device 
did. In any event, the potentially lawful uses alleged by D were largely
fanciful. 
(2) D's sales in breach of a court order were plainly "flagrant" and might 
fairly be described as "scandalous". The court was satisfied that this
entitled 
Sony to additional damages under s.97(2) of the Act. 

Judgment accordingly. 


References:
(2002) IPD 25030 : LTL 14/5/2002 

Judgment:
Official 


Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted