Structure, sequence and organization

Last updated

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. [1] 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. [2] More recently, the concept has been used in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. [3]

Contents

Whelan v. Jaslow

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. was a landmark case in defining principles that applied to copyright of computer software. [4] Whelan had developed software for Jaslow to manage the operations of a dental laboratory, and later took it to market under the trade name Dentalab. Jaslow became engaged in selling the Dentalab software. [5] He later formed a new company named Dentcom and wrote a program in a different computer language but with similar functionality that he called Dentlab, marketing it as a Dentalab successor. Whelan filed a suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the Dentlab software violated Whelan's copyrights in the Dentalab software. Whelan won the case and was awarded damages on the basis that Dentlab had substantially similar structure and overall organization. [6]

The district court ruling in Whelan drew on the established doctrine that even when the component parts of a work cannot be copyrightable, the structure and organization of a work may be. [7] The court also drew support from the 1985 SAS Inst. Inc. v. S&H Computer Sys. Inc. in which it had been found that copyright protected organizational and structural details, not just specific lines of source or object code. [fn 1] [8] Sequence, structure and organization (SSO) in this case was defined as "the manner in which the program operates, controls and regulates the computer in receiving, assembling, calculating, retaining, correlating, and producing useful information." [1] SSO refers to non-literal elements of computer programs that include "data input formats, file structures, design, organization and flow of the code, screen outputs or user interfaces, and the flow and sequencing of the screens.". [9] However, the SAS Inst. Inc. V. S&H Computer Sys. Inc. demonstrated that copyright can exist in derived works from publicly funded developed source code in the public domain [10] rather than address the issue of SSO.

Jaslow appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that computer programs are literary works under U.S. law. [11] The court reasoned that with literary works a non-literal element is protected to the extent that it is an expression of an idea rather than the idea itself. By analogy, the purpose or function of a software work would be the work's "idea", while everything not necessary to that purpose or function would be part of the expression of the idea. The expression would be protected, although the basic purpose or function would not. [5] On this basis the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling of copyright violation due to similarity of SSO. [12]

Early adoption and criticism

For the next few years most, but not all, circuit courts accepted the Whelan decision on SSO in one form or another. [13] This resulted in a period of tight protection for software, since almost everything other than the broad purpose of a software work would be protected. The only exception was where the functionality could only be achieved in a very small number of ways. In these cases there could be no protection due to the merger doctrine, which applies when the expression and the idea are inextricably merged. [2]

In one case a court found that a defendant had infringed the right to prepare a derivative work when they copied the sequence, structure, and organization of the plaintiff's file formats, screen, reports, and transaction codes, even though different data fields were present. [14] In 1986 the ruling in Broderbund Software, Inc v. Unison World, Inc appeared to prevent software developers from marketing products with the same or similar user interfaces, regardless of whether there was anything in common in the underlying code. [13] In the 1990 case of Lotus v. Paperback the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts decided that Paperback's VP-Planner software violated the copyright of Lotus's 1-2-3 spreadsheet program since it had the same user interface, even though the underlying code was completely different. [15]

A technical criticism of Whelan is that it fails to distinguish between the sequence in which instructions are presented in the text of a program and the sequence in which the instructions are executed - the program's behavior. Both the textual and behavioral aspects have their own SSO, but a programmer would see the textual SSO as relatively unimportant. [16] A related point is that although the text of a computer program may be an "original work of authorship", protected by copyright laws, the algorithms and designs that the program embodies may be better considered to be "processes, procedures, systems, methods of operation", which are explicitly excluded from copyright protection although they may be protectable by patents. [17] The distinction between the code's SSO, which is protected by copyright, and the protocol or algorithm, which is patentable, is however extremely difficult to maintain. [18]

The Whelan ruling has been criticized as being "dangerously broad". By saying that the purpose of the program was to assist a Dental lab operation, and that anything not essential to that purpose was an expression, it left open a wide range of functions that could be deemed "not essential" and therefore subject to protection. [19] In the 1988 Healthcare Affiliated Services, Inc. v. Lippany the court took a position more in line with the idea-expression merger concept, saying that the defendant's choice of scope, variables to be used and other aspects of what its software would do did not constitute the SSO. [20] In 1987 the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the extension of copyright protection to the non-literal elements of computer programs in the case of Plains Cotton Cooperative Ass'n v. Goodpasture Computer Serv. The court held that input formats were idea rather than expression and refused to extend protection to these formats. The court said: "We decline to embrace Whelan." [13]

Computer Associates v. Altai

In Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. in 1992 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the conclusion in Whelan that the structure, sequence and organization of a program might by protected by copyright where appropriate. [21] However, the court went on to say, "As we have already noted, a computer program's ultimate function or purpose is the composite result of interacting subroutines. Since each Subroutine is itself a program, and thus, may be said to have its own 'idea,' Whelan's general formulation that a program's overall Purpose equates with the program's idea is descriptively inadequate." [22]

The Second Circuit introduced the three-step Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, and several other circuits later adopted this test. In the abstraction step the court identifies similarities starting from the object and source code and moving up to higher levels of abstraction. In the filtration step any legitimate similarities are discarded. [23] Elements removed in this step include obvious expressive interpretations of broad ideas, elements dictated by efficiency or external considerations, elements in the public domain and industry standards. [24] In the comparison step the court decides whether there is enough similarity between the remaining elements to constitute infringement, and if so the severity of the infringement. [23]

One effect of the Altai case may have been that companies that thought they were protected under Whelan, and had therefore not filed patent applications, now found themselves exposed. [25] The Altai case may have gone too far, in effect removing protection from all but the literal elements of a program and thus leading to underprotection. Aware of this risk, many courts that followed the Altai ruling seem to have in practice performed less filtration than was required by the test. [2] However, most circuits have accepted Altai in preference to Whelan. [26]

Later decisions

Both the code and the "look and feel" of a software product have structure, sequence and organization. Technically there is little or no connection between the two. The same look and feel can be created by entirely different software products, and two internally very similar software products may present very different look and feel. However, the courts have tried to maintain common standards and tests for both types of SSO. [27]

Following the 1986 Broderbund ruling, Lotus Development Corporation sued two competing spreadsheet program vendors for copying the look and feel of their Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program, and Apple Computer sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard for copying the Macintosh operating system's use of icons, pull-down menus and a mouse pointing device. Both companies drew criticism, since key elements of their look and feel had been introduced earlier by VisiCalc and Xerox. A 1992 federal court finding against Apple largely rejected the idea that copyright law could protect look and feel. The Lotus case went to the Supreme Court, which could not reach a decision, thus by default confirming the lower court's 1995 declaration that the words and commands used to manipulate the spreadsheet were a "method of operation", which is not subject to copyright. [28]

Only patent law can protect the behavior of a computer program. Competitors may create programs that provide essentially the same functionality as a protected program as long as they do not copy the code. The trend has been for courts to say that even if there are non-literal SSO similarities, there must be proof of copying. Some relevant court decisions allow for reverse-engineering to discover ideas that are not subject to copyright within a protected program. The ideas can be implemented in a competing program as long as the developers do not copy the original expression. [29] With a clean room design approach one team of engineers derives a functional specification from the original code, and then a second team uses that specification to design and build the new code. This was piloted in the mid-1980s by a team from Phoenix Technologies to produce a BIOS functionally equivalent to that of the IBM Personal Computer without infringing on IBM's copyright. [30]

In August 2010 Oracle Corporation initiated a lawsuit against Google claiming a combination of patent and copyright violations related to Google's implementation of the Java programming language in Google's Android operating system. On May 7, 2012 a jury decided that Google had infringed the SSO copyright of 37 Java Application programming interface (API) packages, but were unable to decide whether this was fair use. [31] The judge asked both Google and Oracle to provide further detail of their positions over whether an API or a programming language such as Java can be copyrighted. He also asked for both sides to comment on a ruling by the European Court of Justice in a similar case that found "Neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection." [32] On May 31, 2012 the judge ruled that "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API." [33]

In reviewing the Oracle v. Google case history, the court noted:

...the above summary of the development of the law reveals a trajectory in which enthusiasm for protection of "structure, sequence and organization" peaked in the 1980s, most notably in the Third Circuit’s Whelan decision. That phrase has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since Johnson Controls in 1989, a decision affirming preliminary injunction. Since then, the trend of the copyright decisions has been more cautious. This trend has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent. This is not to say that infringement of the structure, sequence and organization is a dead letter. To the contrary, it is not a dead letter. It is to say that the Whelan approach has given way to the Computer Associates approach, including in our own circuit. See Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. , 977 F.2d 1510, 1525 (9th Cir. 1992); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 35 F.3d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994). [34]

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.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

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.

The software patent debate is the argument about the extent to which, as a matter of public policy, it should be possible to patent software and computer-implemented inventions. Policy debate on software patents has been active for years. The opponents to software patents have gained more visibility with fewer resources through the years than their pro-patent opponents. Arguments and critiques have been focused mostly on the economic consequences of software patents.

<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.

Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. The lower court had held that copyright does not extend to the user interface of a computer program, such as the text and layout of menus. Due to the recusal of one justice, the Supreme Court decided the case with an eight-member bench split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<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">Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test</span>

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. It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.

SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd (2012) C-406/10 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that copyright protection does not extend to software functionality, programming languages, and file types.

<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.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

<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.

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.

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

<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

Notes
  1. ↑ Software is written in source code, a collection of instructions written in a human-readable programming language. With many languages this is translated by a compiler into object code, where the instructions are in a form that the computer can execute. Source code copying may be crudely disguised by changing the names of procedures and variables. This form of disguise will be immediately visible when the object code is compared, since the object code will be the same.
Citations
  1. 1 2 Kappel 1991, p. 699.
  2. 1 2 3 Abramson 2001, p. 57.
  3. ↑ Lee 2012.
  4. ↑ Graham 1999, p. 88.
  5. 1 2 Kappel 1991, p. 704.
  6. ↑ Graham 1999, p. 89.
  7. ↑ Hamilton & Sabety 1997, p. 241.
  8. ↑ Epstein 2006, p. 11-27.
  9. ↑ Scott 2006, p. 5-56.
  10. ↑ S & H COMPUTER SYSTEMS v. SAS Institute, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 416 - Dist. Court, MD Tennessee 1983
  11. ↑ Hansen 2006, p. 170.
  12. ↑ Graham 1999, p. 91.
  13. 1 2 3 Kappel 1991, p. 705.
  14. ↑ Stapleton 2002, p. 9.6.
  15. ↑ Davidson 1997, p. 115.
  16. ↑ Galler 1995, p. 87.
  17. ↑ Hansen 2006, p. 196.
  18. ↑ Granstrand 2003, p. 407.
  19. ↑ Kappel 1991, p. 708.
  20. ↑ Scott 2006, p. 5-57.
  21. ↑ Takeyama, Gordon & Towse 2005, p. 11.
  22. ↑ Hamilton & Sabety 1997, p. 250.
  23. 1 2 Abramson 2001, pp. 49–50.
  24. ↑ Davidson 1997, p. 116.
  25. ↑ Graham 1999, p. 92.
  26. ↑ Epstein 2006, p. 11-26.
  27. ↑ Epstein 2006, p. 11-17.
  28. ↑ Overbeck & Belmas 2011, p. 270-271.
  29. ↑ Yusuf 2008, pp. 51–52.
  30. ↑ Schwartz 2001.
  31. ↑ Ritti 2012.
  32. ↑ King & Farber 2012.
  33. ↑ Mullin 2012.
  34. ↑ Alsup 2012.
Sources
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.