Works other than Computer Programs Substantiality Uniquely distinctive the taking significantly impair the first work? The author’s ability to benefit from her work? Is the 2nd author unjustly enriching themselves? Do the 2 works compete against each other? Infringement in Computer Programs Canadian Approach abstraction analysis: Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems (p.39) – This abstraction analysis is unique to comp programs, other works are evaluated on substantiality weed out from CR protection those portions, which can’t be protected by CR Abstraction: Comparison: Determine if there is substantial copying Filtration: Disregard copied elements of the work that either have no originality, are dictated by functional considerations or are otherwise mere ideas US approach: Computer Associates International Inc v. Altai Inc Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison – s.27(2) CA secondary infringement arises when a person sells, rents, distributes, trades in, exhibits, imports – infringing copies of works or possesses them for purposes in circumstances where that person knew or should have known the copies infringed CR. Authorization vs. Secondary Infringement Authorization is enabling infringement (ex employer putting a copy machine in the room of copyrighted – work) vs. Secondary infringement (need proof of infringement, and also the knowledge aspect) & [knowledge std in secondary infringement: of that a reasonable man] Both are flooring companies. P claim that D infringed CR in the design of carpet tiles. & HOLDING Did the D have knowledge that its carpet design infringe P’s CR? YES RULE As cite in Apple Computer Inc v Mackintosh – is notice of facts to a reasonable man that a breach is being committed. Knowledge is to be “Knowledge” inferred from facts of case and burden of proof rests on P
Works other than Computer Programs Substantiality Uniquely distinctive the taking significantly impair the first work? The author’s ability to benefit from her work? Is the 2nd author unjustly enriching themselves? Do the 2 works compete against each other? Infringement in Computer Programs Canadian Approach – abstraction analysis: Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems (p.39) This abstraction analysis is unique to comp programs, other works are evaluated on substantiality Abstraction: weed out from CR protection those portions, which can’t be protected by CR Comparison: Determine if there is substantial copying Filtration: Disregard copied elements of the work that either have no originality, are dictated by functional considerations or are otherwise mere ideas US approach: Computer Associates International Inc v. Altai Inc Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison – s.27(2) CA – secondary infringement arises when a person sells, rents, distributes, trades in, exhibits, imports infringing copies of works or possesses them for purposes in circumstances where that person knew or should have known the copies infringed CR. Authorization vs. Secondary Infringement Authorization is enabling infringement (ex – employer putting a copy machine in the room of copyrighted work) vs. Secondary infringement (need proof of infringement, and also the knowledge aspect) & [knowledge std in secondary infringement: of that a reasonable man] Both are flooring companies. P claim that D infringed CR in the design of carpet tiles. & HOLDING Did the D have knowledge that its carpet design infringe P’s CR? YES RULE As cite in Apple Computer Inc v Mackintosh – “Knowledge” is notice of facts to a reasonable man that a breach is being committed. Knowledge is to be inferred from facts of case and burden of proof rests on P
IP-CAN.docx