Autodesk had sold an animation studio a single 3ds Max license. An investigator’s call to the studio indicated that Autodesk software was running on about 30 machines. When Autodesk sued, the trial judge refused to send a court-appointed Local Commissioner to inspect the premises without notice, holding that the investigator’s affidavit was not enough.

The appeal

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed that decision and appointed the Local Commissioner itself. The commissioner found the unlicensed software and took possession of the evidence, and the case settled soon after. Because single judges had been taking divergent approaches, both parties asked the court to lay down guidelines, and it did.

The guidelines

  • The purpose of an inspection is to preserve evidence before it can be removed or deleted, so requesting it without notice is normal.
  • Credible information is enough. Strict proof should not be demanded at the outset.
  • A plaintiff does not have to send a decoy customer first.
  • An investigator’s report should not be dismissed just because the plaintiff hired the investigator.
  • Where the court has doubts, it can require the plaintiff to deposit costs as a safeguard for the defendant.

Why it matters

These guidelines underpin the court-ordered inspections that software publishers rely on in India today. A company that runs unlicensed software can expect the court to arrive unannounced.

Source: Judgment of the Delhi High Court, FAO(OS) 116/2008, July 4, 2008.

Read the judgment

View Fullscreen
Skip to PDF content

Header photo: Orionpenindia, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons (cropped and toned).