Re: Rule of Doubt (Was: Deposit requirements for software copyright registration)

On Thu, March 12, 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Stephen J. Hyland <shyland[_at_]computer-lawyer.com> wrote:
> >
> > 3. You may deposit object code in lieu of source code but you do so
> > under the Rule of Doubt, which means that a Registration Certificate
> > will issue but it does not carry the legal presumptions that it would
> > normally carry. Essentially this means you've got your ticket into
> > federal court but will have to prove authorship, copyrightability, etc.
>
> Are there any actual cases on the consequences of a registration issued
> under the Rule of Doubt? Steve's comment is probably the way it ought
> to come out, in light of the text of 37 CFR 202.20(b)(vii)(B), but I'm
> not aware of any reported use of a Rule of Doubt registration in
> litigation.

See Compaq v. Procomm, 908 F.Supp 1409 (SD Tex. 1995) (presumption held not applicable but finding validity anyway). Interesting case, by the way, on compilation copyright and functionality. I can't see any difference in the analysis employed in this case as a result of the presumption being unavailable. On the other hand, I could see some judges in other courts being moved by the absence of this presumption.

Ron Abramson
<abramson[_at_]hugheshubbard.com> Received on Fri Mar 13 1998 - 15:05:34 GMT