Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test

Last updated

The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) is a method of identifying substantial similarity for the purposes of applying copyright law. In particular, the AFC test is used to determine whether non-literal elements of a computer program have been copied by comparing the protectable elements of two programs. The AFC test was developed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 in its opinion for Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. [1] It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.

Contents

Background

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals developed the AFC test for use in Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai Inc. In that case, Computer Associates sued Altai for copyright infringement of a computer job scheduler program that was designed to be easily ported between operating systems. Proving copyright infringement requires proving both ownership of the copyright and that copying took place. This second requirement can be met either by direct proof, or as is more usually done, by demonstrating the following: 1) the defendant had access to the copyright material and 2) there is substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the defendant's work. [2] Demonstrating substantial similarity can be difficult when the two works are not exact replicas, either in full or in part. The Second Circuit court had found there was little previous guidance on how best to do this.

One notable previous treatment of substantial similarity of the structure, sequence and organization (SSO) of software was adopted by the Third Circuit in Whelan v. Jaslow . [3] The court there suggested identifying the main function of a program as the idea and everything that is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the idea can be considered expression. The Altai court declined to follow this method, noting that the Whelan method "did not place enough emphasis on practical considerations". [4] The AFC test was devised to handle that issue; it is a method for determining whether substantial similarity exists between two computer programs, especially in non-literal elements of the program.

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison

The AFC test is a three-step process for determining substantial similarity of the non-literal elements of a computer program. The process requires the court to first identify the increasing levels of abstraction of the program. Then, at each level of abstraction, material that is not protectable by copyright is identified and filtered out from further examination. The final step is to compare the defendant's program to the plaintiff's, looking only at the copyright-protected material as identified in the previous two steps, and determine whether the plaintiff's work was copied. In addition, the court will assess the relative significance of any copied material with respect to the entire program. [5]

Abstraction

The purpose of the abstraction step is to identify which aspects of the program constitute its expression and which are the ideas. By what is commonly referred to as the idea/expression dichotomy, copyright law protects an author's expression, but not the idea behind that expression. [6] In a computer program, the lowest level of abstraction, the concrete code of the program, is clearly expression, while the highest level of abstraction, the general function of the program, might be better classified as the idea behind the program. The abstractions test was first developed by the Second Circuit for use in literary works, [7] but in the AFC test, they outline how it might be applied to computer programs. The court identifies possible levels of abstraction that can be defined. In increasing order of abstraction; these are: individual instructions, groups of instructions organized into a "hierarchy of modules", the functions of the lowest-level modules, the functions of the higher-level modules, the "ultimate function" of the code. [8]

Filtration

The second step is to remove from consideration aspects of the program which are not legally protectable by copyright. The analysis is done at each level of abstraction identified in the previous step. The court identifies three factors to consider during this step: elements dictated by efficiency, elements dictated by external factors, and elements taken from the public domain. [5] [9]

The court explains that elements dictated by efficiency are removed from consideration based on the merger doctrine which states that a form of expression that is incidental to the idea cannot be protected by copyright. In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright. [10]

Eliminating elements dictated by external factors is an application of the scènes à faire doctrine to computer programs. The doctrine holds that elements necessary for, or standard to, expression in some particular theme cannot be protected by copyright. [11] Elements dictated by external factors may include hardware specifications, interoperability and compatibility requirements, design standards, demands of the market being served, and standard programming techniques. [12]

Finally, material that exists in the public domain can not be copyrighted and is also removed from the analysis. [5]

Comparison

The final step of the AFC test is to consider the elements of the program identified in the first step and remaining after the second step, and for each of these compare the defendant's work with the plaintiff's to determine if the one is a copy of the other. In addition, the court will look at the importance of the copied portion with respect to the entire program. [13]

Acceptance and Use of AFC

Following the Altai case, the AFC method has been widely adopted. Since 1992, every court to deal with the issue of determining substantial similarity in the non-literal aspects of computer programs has chosen the AFC method over the Whelan method. [14] The analysis of the filtration step has been endorsed by courts in Canada and France. [15] In the UK, the AFC test has the dubious honor of being endorsed [16] and disapproved [17] in successive cases. Current English law does not follow the AFC test laid out in Altai.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Bruce Abramson, Promoting Innovation In The Software Industry: A First Principles Approach To Intellectual Property Reform , 8 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 75, 123 (2002) ("Various courts have proposed elegant tests for determining when a second program is "close enough" to an earlier copyright-protected competitor to constitute infringement. Perhaps the most influential of these tests is the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, first introduced by the Second Circuit in Computer Assoc. Int'l v. Altai and subsequently adopted by several other circuits.").
  2. ↑ Altai, para. 39.
  3. ↑ Whelan Associates Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. Archived 2012-05-31 at the Wayback Machine , 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
  4. ↑ Altai, para. 72.
  5. 1 2 3 Jon O. Newman, New Lyrics For An Old Melody: The Idea/expression Dichotomy In The Computer Age Archived July 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine , 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 691, 695-696 (1999) ("Altai then advised courts to "dissect the allegedly copied program's structure and isolate each level of abstraction contained within it." This is to be done, we are told, by charting the program into a hierarchy of modules, each identified, apparently, by the function it performs. Having stratified the program into these levels of abstraction or modules, we are then to move on to what Nimmer calls, and Altai embraces, a "'successive filtering method' for separating protectable expression from non-protectable material." We are to make the separation by determining whether what the opinion calls "the structural components at each level of abstraction" is an idea, which would be unprotectable, or is covered by any of three other inquiries, which if satisfied, would also render the component unprotectable. The first is whether the component was "dictated by considerations of efficiency, so as to be necessarily incidental to that idea." The second is whether the component was "required by factors external to the program itself." The third is whether the component was "taken from the public domain." Once this "filtration" has occurred, the allegedly infringing program is compared to the protectable elements that have survived filtration to determine whether protectable elements have been copied and to assess the relative importance of the copied elements to the plaintiff's overall program.)"
  6. ↑ Altai, para. 76.
  7. ↑ Altai, para. 75-78.
  8. ↑ Altai para. 81.
  9. ↑ Altai, para. 83.
  10. ↑ Altai, para. 85-98.
  11. ↑ Altai, para. 100-101.
  12. ↑ Altai, para. 101-104.
  13. ↑ Altai, para. 108.
  14. ↑ Lemley 2006, p. 54.
  15. ↑ Lemley 2006, p. 55.
  16. ↑ "John Richardson Computers v Flanders". [1993] FSR 497.
  17. ↑ "IBCOS Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd". [1994] FSR 275, 302.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Idea–expression distinction</span> Concept in copyright law

The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

A scène à faire is a scene in a book or film which is almost obligatory for a book or film in that genre. In the U.S. it also refers to a principle in copyright law in which certain elements of a creative work are held to be not protected when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

<i>Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.</i> 1987 lawsuit

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 was a federal case in which artist Saul Steinberg sued various parties involved with producing and promoting the 1984 movie Moscow on the Hudson, claiming that a promotional poster for the movie infringed his copyright in a magazine cover, View of the World from 9th Avenue, he had created for The New Yorker.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

Analytic dissection is a concept in U.S. copyright law analysis of computer software. Analytic dissection is a tool for determining whether a work accused of copyright infringement is substantially similar to a copyright-protected work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantial similarity</span> Standard in US copyright law

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

<i>Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.</i> 1988 legal case

Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 was a court case between two video game manufacturers, where Data East claimed that their copyright in Karate Champ was infringed by World Karate Championship, a game created by Epyx. Data East released Karate Champ in arcades in 1984, and the game became a best-seller and pioneered the fighting game genre. The next year, Epyx published World Karate Championship for home computers, which sold 1.5 million copies. Data East sued Epyx, alleging that the game infringed on their copyright and trademark.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Structure, sequence and organization</span>

Structure, sequence and organization (SSO) is a term used in the United States to define a basis for comparing one software work to another in order to determine if copying has occurred that infringes on copyright, even when the second work is not a literal copy of the first. The term was introduced in the case of Whelan v. Jaslow in 1986. The method of comparing the SSO of two software products has since evolved in attempts to avoid the extremes of over-protection and under-protection, both of which are considered to discourage innovation. More recently, the concept has been used in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

<i>Whelan v. Jaslow</i>

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. was a landmark case in defining principles that applied to copyright of computer software in the United States, extending beyond literal copying of the text to copying the more abstract structure, sequence and organization. The decision initiated a six-year period of heightened copyright protection for computer programs.

<i>Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc.</i>

Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1127, 1133, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California software case, initially important in determining how U.S. copyright law applied to the look and feel presented by a software product. It took an expansive position which later courts increasingly rejected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paraphrasing of copyrighted material</span>

Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may, under certain circumstances, constitute copyright infringement. In most countries that have national copyright laws, copyright applies to the original expression in a work rather than to the meanings or ideas being expressed. Whether a paraphrase is an infringement of expression, or a permissible restatement of an idea, is not a binary question but a matter of degree. Copyright law in common law countries tries to avoid theoretical discussion of the nature of ideas and expression such as this, taking a more pragmatic view of what is called the idea/expression dichotomy. The acceptable degree of difference between a prior work and a paraphrase depends on a variety of factors and ultimately depends on the judgement of the court in each individual case.

<i>Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.</i>

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, was a Ninth Circuit case involving the copyright of greeting cards that introduced the "total concept and feel" standard for determining substantial similarity. Courts used this test in later cases such as Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976).

<i>Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonalds Corp.</i> 1977 copyright infringement lawsuit

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1977) was a case in which puppeteers and television producers Sid and Marty Krofft alleged that the copyright in their H.R. Pufnstuf children's television program had been infringed by a series of McDonald's "McDonaldland" advertisements. The finding introduced the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic tests to determine substantial similarity.

Delrina Corporation v. Triolet Systems Inc, 2002 CanLII 11389, 58 OR (3d) 339, also known as Delrina II, is a 2002 Ontario Court of Appeal case which established the existence of the merger doctrine in Canadian copyright law. The plaintiff, Delrina Corp., sued Triolet Systems Inc. and Brian Duncombe for infringing its copyright of the computer program Sysview by designing similar software, called Assess. The plaintiffs were awarded an interlocutory injunction but ultimately lost at trial. Delrina Corp.’s appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.

Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Co. and BulletProof Technologies, Inc., is a decision by the England and Wales High Court of Justice. The case involved a copyright infringement claim brought by Navitaire Inc. ("Navitaire") against EasyJet Airline Company ("EasyJet") and Bulletproof Technologies, Inc. ("Bulletproof") with regards to software used to construct an airline booking system. Curiously, it was not claimed that Defendant had access to the original source code or that Defendant's source code resembled Plaintiff's in any way.

<i>Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.</i> United States intellectual property law case

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. is an intellectual property law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the previous ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Brown Bag Software sued Symantec Corporation and John L. Friend, an individual software developer for Softworks Development, for copyright infringement and several state law claims regarding the similarity of Symantec Corporation's and Brown Bag Software's computer outlining programs.

The protection of intellectual property (IP) of video games through copyright, patents, and trademarks, shares similar issues with the copyrightability of software as a relatively new area of IP law. The video game industry itself is built on the nature of reusing game concepts from prior games to create new gameplay styles but bounded by illegally direct cloning of existing games, and has made defining intellectual property protections difficult since it is not a fixed medium.

<i>Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.</i> 2012 legal case

Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394, was a 2012 American legal case related to copyright of video games, confirming that a game's look and feel can be protected under copyright law. Tetris Holding is a company that holds the copyright to the original Tetris game from 1985 and licenses those rights to game developers. Xio Interactive is a game developer that released Mino in 2009, a mobile game based on the gameplay of Tetris. Mino was downloaded millions of times, and Tetris Holding filed a DMCA notice and eventually a lawsuit against Xio for copyright infringement.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.