PC Programs (Literary Works) (Not ICT) S.2 definition/Apple v Mac – – S2: means a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied “Computer program” or stored in any manner that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result Protected as literary works Integrated circuit topographies have their own legislation, but it is little used Does not cover the solution to the problem this is patent per se – Rather it is the way the solution is expressed Merger Doctrine If there is only one way to express an idea, then copyright law should not protect that because it would effectively give a monopoly on the idea itself Apple v Mackintosh (SCC) prog embed in chip a reproduction of language protected in CR. – Issue: Object code burned into chip Direct mechanical copying of a computer program is the code still protected – when replicated in chip circuitry? HELD: Programs embedded in the chip are a reproduction of the programs in assembly language and as such are protected by copyright under s3(1) The program was protected, and the chip was like an in of “embodiment 3D” the program, so copying the chip is copying the program Recognized copyright in code: takes skill, judgment, and can be done in a variety of ways in the act so not at issue Now it’s Delrina– In CA we use Holistic Test: filter out components- protect work on the whole don’t Delrina v Triolet Systems (CA) Facts Original co-developer of diagnostic program goes off and creates a program that does the same thing as the original Holistic Test in CA: 1)Is the work subject to CR, 2) If so, was there substantial part taken 1) Determine you have an original work: does it qualify for copyright? as a whole 2) Determine whether it was substantially reproduced Takes into account the A-C-F type of factors at this stage of the test (the of what was taken) “quality” This is a two-step holistic analysis (as opposed to taking out all the elements that are not copyrightable and then comparing the results) ACF used only to determine whether infringement was substantial Held The new program was not a copy of the other one to an extent sufficient to be copyright It does the same thing, but the program itself is sufficiently different and novel 40/14,000 lines of code were the same; of those:
PC Programs (Literary Works) – (Not ICT) – S.2 definition/Apple v Mac S2: “Computer program” means a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result Protected as literary works Integrated circuit topographies have their own legislation, but it is little used Does not cover the solution to the problem per se – this is patent Rather it is the way the solution is expressed Merger Doctrine If there is only one way to express an idea, then copyright law should not protect that because it would effectively give a monopoly on the idea itself Apple v Mackintosh (SCC) – prog embed in chip a reproduction of language protected in CR. Issue: Object code burned into chip Direct mechanical copying of a computer program – is the code still protected when replicated in chip circuitry? HELD: Programs embedded in the chip are a reproduction of the programs in assembly language and as such are protected by copyright under s3(1) The program was protected, and the chip was like an “embodiment in 3D” of the program, so copying the chip is copying the program Recognized copyright in code: takes skill, judgment, and can be done in a variety of ways Now it’s in the act so not at issue Delrina– In CA we use Holistic Test: don’t filter out components- protect work on the whole Delrina v Triolet Systems (CA) Facts Original co-developer of diagnostic program goes off and creates a program that does the same thing as the original Holistic Test in CA: 1)Is the work subject to CR, 2) If so, was there substantial part taken 1) Determine you have an original work: does it as a whole qualify for copyright? 2) Determine whether it was substantially reproduced Takes into account the A-C-F type of factors at this stage of the test (the “quality” of what was taken) This is a two-step holistic analysis (as opposed to taking out all the elements that are not copyrightable and then comparing the results) ACF used only to determine whether infringement was substantial Held The new program was not a copy of the other one to an extent sufficient to be copyright It does the same thing, but the program itself is sufficiently different and novel 40/14,000 lines of code were the same; of those:
Practitioner(s)_93_Fall_2014_Eric_Hou.docx