Introduction
Business law plays an important role in defining the environment under which organizations operate hence ensuring protection of the interests of all the stakeholders. According to Permohammed (2014), no business entity can survive in a lawless market. Without legal structures, the business society can be very chaotic. A business unit will rely on the law to protect it from unfair business practices exercised by clients, the government, or other business entities. Similarly, the law ensures business entities do not ignore the interests of the public in their normal operations. It is on this basis that business and corporate law is established to ensure that there is sanity and that all the stakeholders respect the interests of everyone in order to have a harmonic business environment. One of the laws that have become important in the corporate world is the copyright laws. Many countries around the world have come to embrace the importance of protecting the intellectual rights of the individuals and companies from infringement. This war has been gaining momentum in the United States and European Union and now it has spread to the global society. In the United Arab Emirates, the government has been keen on enacting laws to help in protecting the intellectual rights in accordance with the international laws. In this study, the researcher will focus on a recent court case in Dubai where two men were sent to jail for copyright infringement.
Discussion
The United Arab Emirates is one of the emerging markets in the world. The city of Dubai has become an economic hub, not only in the Middle East, but also to the entire global society. The relevance of this city to the international trade and the entire country in general has forced the government to enact strict trademark laws for both the local and international business societies working in the country. The Federal National Council has been reviewing some of the existing laws on copyright infringement in order to make them tighter in combating intellectual crime. According to Xiong (2012), the Federal Law No. 4 enacted in 1979 was weak in addressing cases of fraud in this country. This scholar says that since 1991, the government has been reviewing the law in order to find the best approach to counter the infringement of intellectual property. This law encourages the international community to come and trade in Dubai, as well protecting the intellectual rights of the local people. The Trademark Law enacted in 1992 was seen as a major step towards achieving superior laws to govern this issue (Permohammed, 2014). Since then, the committee has been keen on making the necessary amendments in line with the changes in the international standards. At this stage, it will be necessary to review a case where the court jailed the two men after pleading guilty to the copyright infringement charges in the city of Dubai.
The Case
Muhammad Jamal and Ahmed Musa were two businesspersons who specialized in selling computers. In 2003, the country was opening up to a new down of the internet era, and the business of selling personal computers was very lucrative in the entire country. They had their premise at the suburbs of the city of Dubai. They had one problem that was affecting their booming business. Most of their clients demanded computers installed with all the necessary software. This was an additional cost that these two traders were not ready to incur. However, they were determined to ensure that their clients were satisfied with their products. They had to find a solution to this problem, and it came in the form of piracy. They illegally downloaded the software and installed them in their computers. Based on their own statements, this worked well because they involved IT experts who knew how to crack the passwords and make the software appear genuine once installed in the computers. They did this for a while, but unfortunately, their scheme botched when the police officers raided their facility and found the counterfeit CDs used in installing the stolen software. The police officers arrested and charged them before the court of law (Counterfeiting, 2008).
The Court’s Verdict
The law enforces presented the case to the Court of First Instance in the city of Dubai for hearing and subsequent judgment. According to the evidence and the confession made by the two suspects, it was clear to the Court of First Instance that the two were involved in copyright infringement. Muhammad and Ahmed pleaded guilty of the crime, but held that they were not aware that their action constituted a criminal offence. In their plea, the two stated that they had visited a software vendor within the city who advised them to download the software and use it in the personal computers. The court heard that the said vendor downloaded the software and gave it to these two businesspeople in the form of CDs. He even instructed them on how they could install the software (Counterfeiting, 2008).
The prosecutor informed the court that the two were playing ignorant in order to get a light sentence. For instance, when the police arrested the two businesspersons, they had 72 counterfeit CDs. However, they told the court that the vendor only sold to them one copy of each software. When questioned about this, they stated that the vendor advised them to reproduce more copies for future use. The second problem with their plea was that the police could not find the said vendor. The premise that the two mentioned were indeed selling computer software. However, the attendant at the shop was a female who claimed that she had never done any transaction with the two men. The owner of the shop also confirmed that he had never hired a man at the shop, and that in all the cases the woman was fully responsible for all the transactions at the shop. The two could not prove their claim that someone else gave them the software (Counterfeiting, 2008).
After hearing all the statements from the prosecutor and the suspects, the court ruled that the two were guilty as charged. They pleaded guilty of illegally downloading the software and selling it to unsuspecting clients. Basing his judgment on the Trademark Law of 1992, the magistrate sentenced the two to one month in prison. The two never appealed against this verdict (Counterfeiting, 2008).
Analysis of the Case
This case received massive praises not only through the local media but also in the international press. It put the United Arab Emirates on the world map as a country that was keen on fighting any form of copyright infringement. According to Xiong (2012), many countries have ignored the need to step up the fight against software theft, but this court proved that this country was keen on taking this battle to the next level. However, the sentence of one month with no fine was too lenient as per the current standards. It is important to note that the verdict based its facts on the Trademark Law of 1992. This was the very first incident that a court in this country was sending someone to jail for infringement of intellectual right involving software. A number of factors influenced the judge’s leniency.
The first factor could have been the fact that during this time (2003), the law on this aspect of economic crime was not very strong. The magistrate knew that this was a landmark case and many people were probably shocked to hear that counterfeit is crime. For this reason, it was not only meant to punish the two men, but also to send a message to the society that this was an economic crime that could earn someone a jail term. The second factor could have been the fact that the two suspects cooperated with the court. They narrated their story and admitted to their crime. This could have earned them sympathy from the magistrate. However, the law on counterfeit products has been amended severally to in the face of increasing sophistication of copyright infringement that is experienced in the current society.
Currently, Anti-commercial Fraud Law governs all the issues concerning counterfeit products. The Federal National Council approved the draft and finally sent it to Sheikh Khalifa who also approved it before it was published in the country’s Official Gazette on March 2014 (Smith, 2014). If the above case were to be analyzed in the face of this new law, some twists will change the entire verdict made by the Court of First Instance in 2003. According to Deans and Balloch (2014), under the newly enacted law on counterfeit, “The punishment for dealing in counterfeit goods or services is a maximum fine of Dh 100,000 and one year’s imprisonment” In the case presented above, the two were sent to prison for one month. In the face of the current laws that were recently enacted, the two could be sent to prison for up to twelve months. As mentioned previously, the court did not levy any form of fine on the two suspects. However, the new laws and regulations regarding counterfeiting has introduced serious fines that such criminals would have to pay. As per the new laws, Muhammad and Ahmed would have found themselves paying a fine of up to Dh 100,000 besides the jail term.
There is another twist to this case that would be interesting to analyze. Under the 1992 Trademark Law that the magistrate relied upon when sending Muhammad and Ahmed to a jail term of one month, the person guilty of committing the office is the one who does the ‘actual stealing’, which in this case would be the one who downloaded the software illegally. It means that under this old law, if Muhammad and Ahmed were able to prove that all the CDs they had was sold to them by the vendor, and that the vendor was arrested and presented before the court, chances would be high that the two would have walked to freedom without any jail term. However, this is not possible under the new law. The law is now very clear. It says that anyone dealing in counterfeit products will be fully held responsible. It does not matter whether or not the dealer knows that the product was a counterfeit because ignorance has never been used as a defense in a court of law. Under this new context, the two would have still gone to jail and paid the fine even if they were able to convince the court that they bought the products. They would have faced the same fate as the one who sold the product to them.
It will also be important to analyze another aspect that was ignored by the court when the case was presented in 2003. According to Consumer Protection Act, it is the moral authority of a trader to inform his customers about the ingredients of his or her products. In this context, Muhammad and Ahmed were expected to inform their customers about the software that was installed in the computers and how they can replace or update them on a regular basis. It is a fact that these two traders did not do this because they knew that their products were counterfeit. Telling their loyal customers that they were selling counterfeit products would have harmed their business.
This Consumer Protection Act also prohibits traders from selling harmful or substandard products. It also criminalizes any form of lie by the trader to his or her clients when selling products. Muhammad and Ahmed breached several principles in this Act. It is a fact that the counterfeit software that they were selling was a substandard product. They also lied to their clients by selling to them counterfeits without informing them about the same. In the face of this new law, these two businesspeople could be charged on other counts based on their act of selling counterfeit software. These new developments clearly indicate that Muhammad and Ahmed could have found themselves in a greater problem if they were to be convicted today. Given the fact that the court may look at the breach of Consumer Protection Act differently from the breach of Anti-commercial Fraud Law, the two could face longer terms in jail, and with greater fines, which may include- but not limited to- cancellation of their trading license.
Conclusion
It is clear from the above case that copyright laws are being transformed in the United Arab Emirates in order to curb the increasing infringement of intellectual property rights. In 2003, the conviction of Muhammad and Ahmed was the first of its kind. Until this time, many people did not believe that they could be jailed for illegally downloading and installing software into their personal computers. This case marked the beginning of a new legal war against individuals who were trading in the counterfeit software in this country. Although the one-month jail term was seen as a lenient punishment, it was enough to warn other people about the consequences of such acts. The new laws that have been enacted to protect the intellectual property in this country spell out stiffer penalties. For instance, the law enforcement agencies have the power to arrest and detain whoever is found with counterfeit products.
References
Counterfeiting: Two men jailed for selling illegal software. (2003). Web.
Deans, R. & Balloch, H. (2014). UAE Anti-Commercial Fraud Law passes through the Federal National Council. The Voice of Arab Communication, 12(1), 1-4.
Permohammed, S. (2014). Protecting Brands Online. London: European Lawyer.
Smith, J. (2014). How to Invest, Start and Run Profitable Business in the United Arab Emirates Guide. New York: International Business Publishers.
Xiong, P. (2012). An International Law Perspective on the Protection of Human Rights in the Trips Agreement: An Interpretation of the Trips Agreement in Relation to the Right to Health. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.