Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 693; 1992
1usiness in
4oth $ompanies are in the $omputer so tware industry55designing, developing and mar3eting various types o $omputer programs.
S"*,0UL,) designed or %4M main rame $omputers whi$h sorts, runs, and $ontrols the various tas3s given to a $omputer.
1y "#.
$reated, is, depending upon the $omputer;s si<e, designed to $ontain one o three operating systems! 0+S=>S,, M>S, or "MS.
?@A8! #ltai de$ided to rewrite D,/, so that it $ould run in $on6un$tion with an M>S +perating system.
#ltai and and Arney is a $omputer programmer who wor3ed or "# and 1oth had 1een $o5wor3ers in "# or sometime 1e ore .illiam le t "# to wor3 or #ltaiFs prede$essor.
.illiams wanted to re$ruit #rney to assist #ltai in designing the M>S version o D,/, and was aware o
1oth the "#5 S"*,0UL,) and #0#7(,) 7rograms 1ut he had never seen the $odes o either program.
.hile wor3ing or "#, #rney helped in improving the >S, version o #0#7(,) and was permitted to ta3e
?@AG! #rney le t or "# to wor3 or #ltai, at that time only he too3 the $opies o the sour$e $ode with him
# ter that, .illiam $reated >S, version o D,/,, thought that approx 8:H o his original program would
have to 1e modi ied and de$ided to name this new $omponent program C+S"#)E.
Facts Contd
%n 8 months, #rney su$$ess ully $ompleted the +S"#) pro6e$t. .hen inally
settled, he had $opied approx 8:H o +S"#)FS $ode rom "#FS #0#7(,) program.
#0#7(,). # ter $on irming, "# se$ured $opyrights on its B.? I 9.: versions o "#5 S"*,0UL,).
Later, .illiam started rewrite the +S"#) #N0 #rney was ex$luded rom the
pro$ess, and his $opy o the #0#7(,) $ode was lo$3ed away.
whom had
Issues
.hether +S"#) 8.J have su1stantial similarity to "#FS #0#7(,) or
notK
"opyright LawK
"#
$ontends that the 0istri$t "ourt applied an erroneous method or determining whether there exists su1stantial similarity 1etween $omputer programs or notK
Contentions of CA
%t also $ontends that 0istri$t "ourt erred in determining that +S"#) 8.J
did not in ringe the $opyrights held on the di erent versions o its "#5 S"*,0UL,) program.
%t
misappropriated
"#Fs
trade
se$rets
1y
"# argues that, despite #ltaiFs rewrite o the +S"#) $ode, the resulting
Contention of Altai
#ltai argued that S.8:? o
# ter ta3ing out all the un$tional elements rom the pu1li$ domain, only a ew lists and ma$ros in +S"#) 8.J were similar to #0#7(,) and their impa$t on the program was not large enough to de$lare $opyright in ringement.
(he $ourt ound that similarity in servi$es reMuired 1y the operating system was due to
the nature o the operating system, thus it was not prote$ted 1y the $opyright.
Similarly, the low $harts were ound to 1e an element di$tated 1y the external a$tors
(he $ourt applied its new #L" stra$tion Liltration "omparison' (est to the two
programs and held that non5 literal elements o #ltaiFs program were not su1stantially similar to the program $opyrighted 1y the "#. So, %n ringement was not ound .
(he $ourt determined that the allegation o misappropriation was 1ased on #ltaiFs use o
the in ringing material, there ore $opyright in ringement $laim preempted the misappropriation $laim a$$ording to S. 8:?.
Holding contd
(he
$ourt ound that the extra elements di erentiate the trade se$ret misappropriation $laim rom the $opyright in ringement $laim. (he $ourt va$ated the distri$t $ourt;s preemption ruling and remanded the $ase 1a$3 to the distri$t $ourt.
AFC est
%n determining whether $opyright in ringement existed, the "ourt
too3 this opportunity to introdu$e a test, the #1stra$tion5Liltration5 "omparison &#L"' test. (he #L" test 1egins 1y 1rea3ing down the $opyrighted so tware into its stru$tural parts &Na1stra$tionN'. (he portions in the pu1li$ domain, in$orporated ideas, and expression ne$essary to those ideas are iltered out &N iltrationN'. Linally, the $ourt $ompares the residue o remaining $reative expression to see i the prote$ted elements are su1stantially similar to the allegedly in ringing so tware &N$omparisonN'.
(*#N/ -+U
Nisha Sharma, LL.M., National Law University Jodhpur [www.lawlex.org]