Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Computer Associates International Inc. v. Altai, Inc. 982 F.

2d 693; 1992

Nisha Sharma, LL.M., National Law University Jodhpur [www.lawlex.org]

Name o the parties!

"omputer #sso$iates %nternational %n$. &"#' #ltai


Judges!

#L(%M#)%, M#*+N,- and .#L/,), "ir$uit Judges.

Background of the case

"# is a 0elaware $orporation, with its prin$ipal pla$e o

1usiness in

2arden "ity, New -or3.

#ltai is a (exas $orporation, doing 1usiness primarily in #rlington, (exas.

4oth $ompanies are in the $omputer so tware industry55designing, developing and mar3eting various types o $omputer programs.

"omputer #sso$iates &"#' $reated a 6o1 s$heduling program $alled "#5

S"*,0UL,) designed or %4M main rame $omputers whi$h sorts, runs, and $ontrols the various tas3s given to a $omputer.

"#5S"*,0UL,) $ontains a su15program entitled #0#7(,), also developed

1y "#.

(he %4M System 89: amily o $omputers, or whi$h "#5S"*,0UL,) was

$reated, is, depending upon the $omputer;s si<e, designed to $ontain one o three operating systems! 0+S=>S,, M>S, or "MS.

Facts of the case


?@AB! #ltai 1egan mar3eting its own 6o1 s$heduling program entitled CD,/,E. (he original version o

D,/, was designed to run with a >S, operating system.

?@A8! #ltai de$ided to rewrite D,/, so that it $ould run in $on6un$tion with an M>S +perating system.

#t that time, James William is an employee o

#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

$opy o #0#7(,)FS sour$e $ode.

?@AG! #rney le t or "# to wor3 or #ltai, at that time only he too3 the $opies o the sour$e $ode with him

or 1oth >S, and M>S versions o #0#7(,).

# 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.

?@AA! "# learned that #ltaiFs may have appropriated parts o

#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.

.illiam put eight other programmers on the pro6e$t, none o

whom had

1een involved in any way in the development o +S"#) 8.G.

(he rewrite pro6e$t was

inished in ?@A@ and the resulting program was

entitled as C+S"#) 8.JE.

Issues
.hether +S"#) 8.J have su1stantial similarity to "#FS #0#7(,) or

notK

(o what extent the non5literal elements are prote$ted 1y the

"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.

Lurther, it asserts that test applied 1y the 0istri$t "ourt

ailed to a$$ount su i$iently or a $omputer programFs non5literal elements.

%t

alleged that #ltai in$orporating into D,/,.

misappropriated

"#Fs

trade

se$rets

1y

"# argues that, despite #ltaiFs rewrite o the +S"#) $ode, the resulting

program remained su1stantially similar to the stru$ture o its #0#7(,)

Contention of Altai
#ltai argued that S.8:? o

the "opyright #$t preempted "#Fs state law $ause o a$tion.

Holding of the Court


(he $ourt re5examined the 0istri$t "ourtFs pro$ess and ound no signi i$ant ault with it.

# 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

are also not prote$ta1le 1y the $opyright.

(he $ourt applied its new #L" &#1stra$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]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen