Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	GR No. 140946 2004-09-13	MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. MAXICORP CARPIO, J.
Maxicorp argues that the warrants issued against it are too broad in scope and lack the specificity required with respect to the objects to be seized. After examining the wording of the warrants issued, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maxicorp and reversed the RTC's Order thus: Under the foregoing language, almost any item in the petitioner's store can be seized on the ground that it is "used or intended to be used" in the illegal or unauthorized copying or reproduction of the private respondents' software and their manuals.[35] The Court of Appeals based its reversal on its perceived infirmity of paragraph (e) of the search warrants the RTC issued. The appellate court found that similarly worded warrants, all of which noticeably employ the phrase "used or intended to be used," were previously held void by this Court.[36] The disputed text of the search warrants in this case states: a) Complete or partially complete reproductions or copies of Microsoft software bearing the Microsoft copyrights and/or trademarks owned by MICROSOFT CORPORATION contained in CD-ROMs, diskettes and hard disks;