SM Summit v Microsoft: Discovery of Documents in Defamation Claim for Software Piracy
In Suit 1323/1998, the Singapore High Court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Lee Seiu Kin, addressed a discovery application in a defamation action between SM Summit Holdings Ltd and Summit CD Manufacture Pte Ltd (Plaintiffs) and Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc, Autodesk Inc, Business Software Alliance, Stuart Ong, Lee Cross, and Ronald Eckstrom (Defendants). The defamation claim arose from a press release following an illegal raid related to software piracy allegations. The court allowed the Defendants' application for further discovery of documents, finding that the information about the documents was acquired independently of the illegal raid and was relevant to the Defendants' defense of justification.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendants' applications for discovery allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
In a defamation claim, the court addressed the discovery of documents related to software piracy, balancing implied undertakings and independent information.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal against discovery order dismissed | Lost | |
| Summit CD Manufacture Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal against discovery order dismissed | Lost | |
| Microsoft Corporation | Defendant | Corporation | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Adobe Systems Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Autodesk Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Business Software Alliance | Defendant | Association | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Stuart Ong | Defendant | Individual | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Lee Cross | Defendant | Individual | Discovery application allowed | Won | |
| Ronald Eckstrom | Defendant | Individual | Discovery application allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The first, second and third Defendants are holders of the copyright in certain computer software.
- Defendants suspected that the Plaintiffs were producing unauthorised copies of their software.
- Defendants obtained a court order to raid the Plaintiffs’ premises and seize infringing copies and related documents.
- The seizure was subsequently held to be illegal and the Defendants were ordered to return all the items and documents seized.
- Plaintiffs commenced an action for defamation against the Defendants in respect of a press release.
- Defendants relied on certain documents seized in the raid to prove justification for the defamatory statements.
- Defendants applied for discovery of 92 categories of documents grouped into 3 categories.
5. Formal Citations
- SM Summit Holdings Ltd and Another v Microsoft Corporation and Others, Suit 1323/1998, SIC 4236 & 4237/1999, [2001] SGHC 94
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Raid carried out on Plaintiffs’ premises | |
| Defendants called a press conference | |
| Court of Appeal delivered decision in CA 39/1999 | |
| Court of Appeal issued decision in CA 176 and 178/99 | |
| Stuart Ong swore an affidavit | |
| High Court made orders for Further and Better List of Documents | |
| Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The Court held that the Defendants were entitled to discovery of documents where the information was acquired independently of the illegal raid.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Implied undertaking from making use of documents illegally seized
- Information acquired independently of the raid
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corporation & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited for background facts and interlocutory battles between the parties. |
| Business Software Alliance & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discovery is allowed for documents sought based on information acquired independently of an illegal raid. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery
- Implied undertaking
- Illegal seizure
- Defamation
- Justification
- Software piracy
- Further and Better List of Documents
- Independent information
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Defamation
- Software Piracy
- Copyright
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Software Piracy | 80 |
| Discovery of documents | 70 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Affidavits | 50 |
| Defamation | 40 |
| Corporate Litigation | 40 |
| Company Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation
- Intellectual Property
- Copyright