The company decided to go ahead with the counterclaim after reviewing Judge Wilson's "thoughtful" 46-page decision handed down on Friday last week.
"While Sharman is disappointed with the court's conclusion that the Constitution permits this case to be heard in the United States, we fully expect to prevail on the merits," the statement said. "Sharman's upcoming counterclaim will set forth the full story for the first time."
The company is declining to reveal any further details at this stage.
Friday's judgement ruled that record companies and movie studios are able to proceed with a lawsuit against the parent company of Kazaa--the most popular online file-swapping service--in the United States.
The decision was taken on the basis that Kazaa software had been downloaded and used by millions of Californians, thus enabling the US-based lawsuit to proceed.
Although based in Sydney, Sharman Networks is incorporated in the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and had previously filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was not bound by US laws since it did not have substantial contacts with California.
"Given that Sharman's (Kazaa) software has been downloaded more than 143 million times, it would be mere cavil to deny that Sharman engages in a significant amount of contact with California residents," Wilson wrote. Also, he said, "many, if not most, music and video copyrights are owned by California-based companies."
The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America applauded the decision in a joint statement.
"We are pleased that the court denied the efforts of Sharman Networks...to avoid being subject to the suit. Sharman Networks...should be held accountable by US laws, which clearly indicate that what they are doing is illegal, and that they should not profit from it," the trade associations said.
This week's ruling came after Wilson heard oral arguments in November 2002, and could mean that the Kazaa lawsuit will be rolled into a larger one involving Streamcast Networks and Grokster, two rival file-swapping companies that use the same underlying technology as Sharman.
Wilson said the case was different from a similar one involving a Texas man who was sued in California for distributing a DVD-descrambling utility online. The California Supreme Court said in November 2002 that Internet distribution of software did not subject someone to California jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court briefly put that decision on hold, then backed out of the case this month.
Additional reporting by Declan McCullagh, Special to ZDNet.
Why are Sharman being targetted??
After all, it is not they who are pirating the goods. Just because some of the users use it for illegal purposes, it doesnt mean Sharman are liable for their actions.
Heres an idea for the yanks.
Sue all firearms manufacturers out of existance. Sure, its not them who commit the murders, but they do supply the weapon.
Sue all the car manufacturers. They are the ones who provide the tool for getaways after crimes are committed.
Warning to the MPAA/RIAA.
Don't start pissing off the Aussies. Your govt does want our support in the middle east does it not?
Besides, how many times do you want your websites broken?