Re: (c) in OO software modeling language

From: Anthony Claiborne <abc[_at_]ares.csd.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:20:06 -0600

Gabriel Wachob <gwachob[_at_]aimnet.com> wrote:
>
> OK. I have a real-world question for cni-copyright that at first seems
> really simple, but upon further reflection troubles me.
>

[snip]

That problem is not really simple at all. It is a classic "look and feel" non-literal copying question.

The answer is clear as mud, IMHO. Depends what federal circuit you are in. In my circuit (10) and the Second Circuit, the three part Altai test may be useful (Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, 982 F2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992), which you probably know is

  1. Abstraction: "[I]n a manner that resembles reverse engineering on a theoretical plane, a court should dissect the alleged copied program's structure and isolate each level of abstraction contained within it. This process begins with the code and ends with the articulation of the program's ultimate function. Along the way, it is necessary essentially to retrace and map each of the designer's steps - in the opposite order in which they were taken during the program's creation."
  2. Filtration "[E]xamining the structural components at each level of abstraction to determine whether their particular inclusion at that level was 'idea' or was dictated by considerations of efficiency, so as to be merely incidental to that idea; required by factors external to the program itself; or taken from the public domain and hence is non-protectable expression."
  3. Comparison: "Once a court has sifted out all the elements of the allegedly infringed program which are 'idea' or are dictated by efficiency or external factors, or taken from the public domain, there may remain a core of protectable expression.... At this point, the court's substantial similarity inquiry focuses on whether the defendant copied any aspect of this protected expressioni, as well as an assessment of the copied portion's relative importance with respect to the plaintiff's overall program."

Anyway, your use of idea/expression dichotomy is part of the filtration step in this three part analysis. As a rule, the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th circuits are adopting pretty tough filtration (even when they don't use the three part test) so little of the allegedly infringed program remains that is protectable when it comes down to comparison with the allegedly infringing work.

Does that help?

Anthony Claiborne
<abc[_at_]ares.csd.net> Received on Wed May 28 1997 - 17:25:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT