Microsoft has again joined forces with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to highlight the benefits of using genuine software and stronger protection on IP innovation. Their most recent event, held on 26 April 2011, spoke out about the importance of IP rights.
Strong IP protections are central to instilling a culture of innovation, which can spur economic growth, create jobs and increase revenue for the broader industry and government organisations. Microsoft believes that the global arena needs stronger IP protections in place to safeguard the industry’s ability to innovate, level the playing field for small businesses, and help local governments generate tax revenue through the legitimate sale and trade of genuine software.
“In addition to strengthening the economy, sound IP policies can help reduce software piracy and counterfeiting, which we know sap government resources, threaten legitimate businesses and expose consumers to the risks that come from using non-genuine software,” said Charl Everton, anti-piracy lead, Microsoft South Africa. “Software piracy and counterfeiting tend to thrive in places with weak IP protection, and this has an enormous and negative impact on the global economy.”
At the recent Convention on Reducing Software Piracy organised by the Free Market Foundation (FMF) and the Information Technology Association (ITA), and hosted by Microsoft South Africa, Everton revealed her “5 step roadmap to reducing software piracy” and placed collaboration at the heart of what is needed to decrease piracy locally. “What we need to do in South Africa is lead by example when using original products and while policies are in place, we need to play a strong role in supporting enforcement bodies to bring the culprits to justice. Cross-border cooperation and the promotion of public and private partnerships will increase capacity and awareness about counterfeit goods and IP rights”.
Microsoft’s commitment to collaboration is evident in Operation ThengaEyakho, a pilot campaign jointly led by Microsoft and the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). Operation ThengaEyakho is focused on IPR and software specific anti-piracy messaging. The campaign is aimed at driving awareness and education amongst universities, high-schools, small businesses, the public and includes law enforcement capacity building. Mkhuseli Vimba, Director of Education and Awareness at the CIPC said,’ Operation ThengaEyakho wants to encourage people to buy original, be original. This partnership with Microsoft is a step in the right direction in fighting piracy and helping these groups to better understand their intellectual property rights and those of others.”
The event, which brought together several players in the software industry including the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Computer Society South Africa, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), Microsoft and others, also stressed a strong correlation between economic growth and the prevalence of piracy.
DTI provided an overview of the Counterfeit Goods Act and the Copyright Act put in place to protect intellectual property, and pinpointed the challenges in enforcing these regulations due to capacity and the need for training. It was revealed that the total value of counterfeit goods seized in the last financial year amounted to over R696 million.
Microsoft South Africa can reveal that a civil case will shortly be brought against a local computer shop owner in Port Elizabeth, who has been raided on two occasions in connection with selling unlicensed and counterfeit software to unsuspecting customers. A criminal trial is also pending against the same suspect. The suspect was not only selling counterfeit software, but changing the CK numbers of company invoices. The counterfeit goods were packaged to look like genuine products and included counterfeit CDs with simulated holograms and counterfeit certificates of authenticity. “Any action that is taken against these criminals often prevents the funding of more serious crime, and while consumers don’t often realise they have illegal software – they are instrumental in bringing these criminal operations to justice” says Everton.”
According to a study commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce in 2011, the global economic and social impacts of counterfeiting and piracy will reach US$1.7 trillion by 2015 and put 2.5 million legitimate jobs at risk each year. Conversely, the economic rewards for countries that strengthen IP protection and reduce piracy are substantial. According to an economic study by the Business Software Alliance, a reduction in the worldwide piracy rate by 10 percentage points in four years would create $142 billion in new economic activity and add nearly 500,000 new high-tech jobs around the world.
To help people and organisations around the world better understand the value of building a sound IP environment and the ramifications of using non-genuine software, Microsoft’s has posted information on IP licensing and laws at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing. More information about genuine Microsoft products, licensing and labels is available at http://www.HowToTell.com.
Port Elizabethan
Latest posts by Port Elizabethan (see all)
- Why Fewer People Are Being Convicted for Commercial Crimes - 15 May 2026
- Urgent Call for South Africa to Support and Join Global Efforts to Phase Out Fossil Fuels - 15 April 2026
- Unfenced 6 SAI Army Base Outside Makhanda Claims Another Life - 20 November 2025
- Death Toll Rises From Makhado Bus Crash - 21 October 2025
- Law Clinics Flooded as Home Affairs Blocks Asylum Seekers From the System - 15 October 2025
Legalbrief Today: PE Technologies manager Vikesh Singh (31) has appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court after being arrested for selling fraudulent Microsoft goods from the Newton Park-based computer shop.
The Port Elizabeth Commercial Crime Unit arrested the shop manager after receiving a complaint from the official Microsoft dealers, claiming that PE Technologies was dealing in fraudulent copies. The Herald reported that Singh is the son of the business’ owner. According to a source close to the investigation, all SA Microsoft products are imported from Ireland, whereas the product sold at PE Technologies was from China. Singh was granted R5 000 bail and his case was postponed until next month allowing police to investigate the matter. (2008)
This is not the first time Vikesh has been caught selling fraudulent software, I belive he was caught in Queenstown and East London on previous occasions. Lock him up and throw away the key.
No doubt you are a morally upright human being. However, have you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything… even someone’s heart, and broken it? You are just as guilty as Mr. Singh my friend. Lock him up for a while, but to throw away the key shows that you know little of fair justice.
MICOROSFT WITHDRAWS R600 000 CIVIL SUIT AGAINST VIKESH
SINGH AND VISION TECHNOLOGIES
Microsoft SA
withdraws R600 000 civil suit against Vikesh Singh and Vision
Technologies. A spokesperson for Vision
Technologies announced today that Microsoft SA had placed a press release on
many internet sites informing the public that the Port Elizabeth Commercial
Crime Court had successfully convicted Vikesh Singh on several charges
including the unlawful distribution of pirated Microsoft Software and hard disk
loading, etc. Mr Waterman, Microsoft’s
lawyer for the Middle East and Africa, in his statement to the public fails to
mention all the facts in the matter. It
is unethical for an officer of the High Court of South Africa to have given a
one-sided version of the facts which favours his employers, Microsoft, and has
caused major collateral damage to Vision Technologies. Waterman fails to state that Vision
Technologies spent R1.3m with Microsoft SA last year. Secondly, Waterman fails to state that
Microsoft had withdrawn a civil action against Vision Technologies for
R600 000.00. Why would they do
that? The only reason to be inferred
from this is that they did not have such a cause of action against Vision
Technologies and would have failed to succeed with their civil action in the
Port Elizabeth High Court with regards to the action that was withdrawn by
Microsoft. Vision Technologies had spent
a substantial amount of money in legal fees to defend this civil action. Vision Technologies intends recovering this
amount of money in a civil action against Microsoft. Thirdly, Waterman does not state that Vikesh
Singh had provided copies of the Microsoft products he intended to import, to
SARS Customs Division to enquire whether the products were genuine or
counterfeit. SARS Forensic Unit had
informed Vikesh Singh that they would send the Microsoft products that he had
provided to them, for expert advice. After it was tested, SARS Forensic Unit
approved the Microsoft products to be imported.
Upon receiving the said advice from SARS Forensic Unit, Singh imported
150 units of the Microsoft Software.
When the units arrived SARS withheld copies (samples) in order to have
these products tested again. Only once
SARS had approved the software was it released to Singh. What more can a reasonable man do to
determine whether the software was legitimate or not? Furthermore Microsoft seized 148 of the
units. The loss to Microsoft was
negligible given the fact that Singh had purchased software to the value of
R1.3m last year. In terms of Microsoft’s
press release or Waterman’s statement it seems as if Microsoft operated a
squeaky clean investigation when they were covered in dirt because they never
checked out all the other computer stores in Port Elizabeth which are commonly
known to be doing hard disk loading.
Microsoft decided to focus on Vision Technologies only. Waterman as a lawyer should understand that
the investigation into Vision Technologies was discriminatory in nature. Vision Technologies is busy taking legal
advice about launching an application for discrimination in the Equality Court
for loss of future income against Microsoft and
Dale Waterman in his personal capacity.
The collateral damage caused by Waterman’s statement has led to
suppliers of Vision Technologies terminating business relations with Vision
Technologies and causing a huge loss to Vision Technologies. These actions of the various suppliers are
unconstitutional and will be referred to the Competitions Board imminently. Furthermore, Microsoft via Waterman’s
statement is an attack on Vikesh Singh’s dignity. This has already been referred to the Human
Rights Commission. The decision by
Vikesh Singh to enter into a plea bargain was purely a business decision. Should he have pleaded not guilty, the trial
would have run for two years and would have meant Singh would have spent more
time in court that at his place of work and in addition to this, the legal
costs would have been exorbitant. This
would have bankrupted Singh. It must be
pointed out that Singh never stole a licence key for Microsoft 2003. This key is freely available on the net.
Can anyone shed some light here? Microsoft SA withdraws R600 000 civil suit against Vikesh Singh and Vision Technologies.
The real facts according to iafrica.com (22 June 2011) and I quote:
A rogue computer reseller who sold pirated software to unwitting consumers in Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg has been handed a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay compensation to his victims. Computer shop manager Vikesh Singh, who traded as PE Technologies in Port Elizabeth and later as Vision Technologies in Johannesburg, was found guilty in the Specialised Commercial Crime Court in Port Elizabeth on 15 June of fraud and multiple contraventions of the Counterfeit Goods and Copyright Acts for selling counterfeit and unlicensed copies of Microsoft software. Singh also pleaded guilty for contravening the Companies and the Close Corporations Acts by acting as a manager while disqualified, as he had previously been convicted of theft. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, provided he doesn’t contravene the Counterfeit Goods Act or the Copyright Act. He was also sentenced to a fine of R80 000, or four years’ imprisonment conditionally suspended for five years, for contravening the Companies Act and the Close Corporations Act. Singh was also ordered to compensate four customers, who had been sold counterfeit Microsoft software and acted as witnesses in the criminal case, three times the value of their purchases, and ordered by the court to pay compensation to Microsoft of R150 000. One of Singh’s victims said he had lost personal data after a system malfunction caused by the counterfeit software. “I bought Office 2007 from PE Technologies in Port Elizabeth in 2008. It was a packaged like a genuine product with what I thought was a genuine hologram CD and a certificate of authenticity, but I started getting messages to say that the product was not genuine. I then approached Microsoft for assistance after Vikesh Singh refused to replace the product with genuine software,”said the customer, who asked to remain anonymous. The case followed a SAPS Commercial Crime Unit raid on PE Technologies in Newton Park in August 2008 after a two-year investigation by Microsoft, including undercover test purchases. Microsoft had received several complaints from local consumers and legitimate computer shops in the region. During the raid the SAPS seized a large quantity of fake Microsoft software, packaged to look like genuine products, and being sold to unsuspecting customers as the genuine article. A further SAPS raid in April 2009 followed after another undercover Microsoft test purchase confirmed that PE Technologies in Port Elizabeth were still engaged in what is referred to as “Hard Disc Loading”, a term used when a PC shop or reseller installs a copy of Microsoft software onto a computer, but fails to distribute the authorised package of genuine Microsoft software components. Investigations also confirmed that PE Technologies in Port Elizabeth had been using a stolen Volume Licence Key belonging to another legitimate customer to install pirated copies of the Microsoft Office suite, and that Vision Technologies in Johannesburg had then subsequently been engaged in the practice of Hard Disc Loading. I think Vikesh himself has written the “withdrawal of the civil case” … as it’s nowhere to be found on the internet ……… He may not have stolen a “licence key” for Office 2003 but it’s still illegal to provide customers with a licence key!