Microsoft Corp. v. John Coppola (PDF) Microsoft Corp. v. Denise Ricketts (PDF) Judge Alsup Decided May 24, 2007 Microsoft sued both John Coppola and Denise Ricketts (in separate lawsuits) for selling counterfeit copies of Microsoft products on eBay.com and ioffer.com, respectively. Microsoft investigators purchased three counterfeit copies from each defendant to verify that the product was in fact counterfeit. Neither Coppola nor Ricketts appeared or otherwise responded to MicrosoftÃ¢â?¬â?¢s complaint. Microsoft sued them both for Ã¢â?¬Å?copyright infringement, trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin, constructive trust on illegal profits and accounting.Ã¢â?¬Â? Microsoft sought maximum statutory damages of $3.2M from Coppola and $3.05M from Ricketts. In addition, Microsoft asked for $2000 in attorneyÃ¢â?¬â?¢s fees from each party. The court has significant discretion to award damages on a default judgment. In his discretion, Judge Alsup awarded Microsoft attorneyÃ¢â?¬â?¢s fees in both cases and $14,000 from Coppola and $12,500 from Ricketts. These numbers represent twice the statutory minimum. Coppola and Ricketts were both permanently enjoined from selling more infringing products. Judge Alsup was not comfortable awarding Microsoft over $3M per defendant on a default judgment. Statutory damages are intended to serve as a deterrent, but that does not justify such a windfallÃ¢â?¬Â¦. These damages, coupled with the permanent injunction granted against defendant, will adequately serve the purpose of deterrence. Microsoft was unable to prove actually damages because it could not conduct any discovery. Maybe it was a smart move by Coppola and Ricketts to not respond to MicrosoftÃ¢â?¬â?¢s complaints. If you were their counsel would you advise them to default?