Copyrighted Software: Separating the Protected Expression from Unprotected Ideas, a Starting Point J Dianne Brinson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Boston College Law Review Volume 29 Article 2 Issue 5 Number 5 9-1-1988 Copyrighted Software: Separating the Protected Expression from Unprotected Ideas, A Starting Point J Dianne Brinson Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation J D. Brinson, Copyrighted Software: Separating the Protected Expression from Unprotected Ideas, A Starting Point, 29 B.C.L. Rev. 803 (1988), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol29/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE: SEPARATING THE PROTECTED EXPRESSION FROM UNPROTECTED IDEAS, A STARTING POINT' J. DIANNE BRINSON * Copyright protects only an author's expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Now that it is clear that copyright protects computer programs, courts must do for computer programs what courts have found difficult to do for literary and artistic works — separate ideas from expression. This article offers two principles or suggestions for beginning the process of separating a computer program's unprotected ideas from its protected expression; (I) do not confuse protected expression with program code; and (2) do not confuse a program's unprotected ideas with its function. L INTRODUCTION If we want a computer to solve a particular problem, we must give the computer a "recipe" that spells out the exact steps which the computer must execute to reach that problem's solution.' The recipe must be written so precisely that the computer can follow the instructions, and it must be written in a form of notation (code) that the computer can mechanically comprehend. 2 The recipe that instructs the computer is called a pro- gram. 5 Programs commonly are referred to as "computer software."' A computer can do only what it is instructed to do. A person must write the program that instructs the computer. In the United States, authors of computer programs may claim copyright protection for their works. 5 The exclusive rights of copyright give the creator of a computer program valuable protection against unauthorized copying and t Copyright © Boston College Law School. * Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia; J.D., Yale Law School (1976); B.A., Duke (1973); admitted to the bar in Georgia and California. 1 S. ALAcac & M. ARRAS, THE DESIGN or WE1,1.-STRUCTURED AND CORRECT PROGRAMS 1 (1978). Id, Although a computer cannot think, it can execute correctly written instructions faster than a human could. See R. SAI:I'MAN, COPYRIGHT IN COMVUTER-READABLE WORKS 59 (1977). 3 S. Ai,, etc & M. AMR, 1- 14plil note 1, at 1. "Software", in its broadest sense, includes everything in a computer system that is not "hard- ware," the physical components of the computer that actually perform operations. This broader definition of software includes, in addition to programs, such related material as documentation, Ilow charts, and user manuals. Note, Defining the Scope of Copyright Protection for Computer Software, 38 S'I'AN. L. RE\'. 497, 500 (1986). For a more detailed discussion of the term "software" sec Keplinger, Computer' Software — Its Nature and Rs Protection, 30 EMORY L.J. 483, 484-88 (1981). ' See, e.g., Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F,2,1 1222, 1223 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 877 (1987); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1247 (3d Cir. 1983). See generally I M. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 2.04[C] (1987). There is also an international trend toward i;opyright protection for software. Oman, Software As Seen by the U.S. Copyright Office, 28.IDEA 29, 33 (1987). The work Intellectual Properly Rights in an Age of Electronics and Informaiiim (1986) [hereinafter OTA Report], prepared by the Office of Tech- nology Assessment (OTA), "examines the impact of ... advances in communication technologies on [our) intellectual property system." Id. at iii. 803 804 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:803 use of the work.° Copyright protection extends, however, only to the author's "expres- sion" of ideas, and not to the underlying ideas used by that author. Ideas are open to everyone, and others are free to study a copyrighted work and take its ideas.' Now that it is dear that software is protected by copyright, software producers are bringing copyright infringement suits to stop the unauthorized sale of alleged clones of their copyrighted programs. The defendant's position in such a case is likely to be that the defendant took merely unprotected ideas from the plaintiff's work." Such a defense requires the court to separate a program's protected expression from its unprotected ideas. In literature and drama, the more traditional areas of copyright, courts have, for years, had trouble separating expression from ideas." Courts now must distinguish between ideas and expression for computer programs, works written in technical code language for the purpose of instructing computers. The dividing line between idea and expression, elusive in literature, cannot easily be drawn for programs. As one federal district court judge noted recently, "computer programming ... [isj not readily compre- hended by the uninitiated. The challenge of counsel to make comprehensible for the court the esoterica of bytes and modules is daunting." 1 ° The purpose of this article is to suggest a starting point for separating a program's ideas from its expression. This starting point consists of two principles. First, do not confuse protected expression with the program code. A program's protected expression is not limited to the literal code of the program. Second, do not confuse a program's unprotected ideas with its function. A program, whatever its function, contains many unprotected ideas. These two principles, drawn from non-software copyright cases, discussed in Part 11 of this article, and from program design concepts, discussed in Part 111 of this article, are the focus of Part IV of this article. The Third Circuit's recent decision in Whelan Associates v. faslota Dental Laboratory, I ac., 1 one of the cases discussed in Part I V, recognizes the first principle but not the second principle. Part V hypothesizes that if courts 'I Software is easily duplicated within the computer in a process that resembles the audio taping of a record. Piracy here and abroad is a major problem for the U.S. software industry. See OFFICE. OE COMPUTERS AND BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT or CommEncal, A COMPETITIVE AssEss- str.n•r OE THE U.S. SOFFWARE INDusTkv 51-52 (1984) [hereinafter REPORT]. With the appearance of the microcomputer and personal computers in the late 1970s, the software market increased dramatically, The distribution of mass-marketed programs for such microcomputers as the IBM l'C has become a multibillion dollar industry. Note, Copyright Protection of Computer Software, 5 COMPUTER LAW J. 413, 416 ii.10 (1985). 'The distinction between the protected expression and the unprotected ideas originated in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). The present version of the federal copyright statute codifies the idea/expression dichotomy, stating in part that "in no case does copyright protection ... extend to any idea ...." 17 U.S.C. 102(h) (1982). See generally 3 M. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGITF § 13.03[A] (1987); infra notes 52-63 and accompanying text. " E.g., Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 877 (1987). See infra Section IV for other cases analyzing this defense. See infra Section 11 D. Q-Co Indus. v. Hoffman, 625 F. Stipp. 608, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). 11 797 F.2(1 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 877 (1987). Whelan is the subject of a special forum issue of the journal of Law and Technology. That issue contains lour commentaries on Whelan: Ladd & Joseph, Expanding Computer Software Protection by Limiting the Idea, 2 J.L. & TEcu. 25 (1987); Goldhammer, Computer Programs and Technological Innovation: Testing the Copyright Law, 2 J.L. & TEcii. 17 (1987); Karam, Countervailing Considerations, 2 J.L. & Tam. 25 (1987); and ‘Vessel, Substantial Similarity, 2 J.L. & TECH. 35 (1987). September 1988] COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE 805 perpetuate the Whelan court's error of extending copyright protection beyond program code, without recognizing that a program contains many unprotected ideas, the result will be that courts will over-protect early developers of software at the expense of later developers. Finally, after discussing the potential impact of the Whelan error, Part V of this article proposes that courts avoid the overprotection problem by recognizing this article's second principle that there are many unprotected ideas subsumed in a computer program's function and by using copyright's traditional "levels of abstraction" analysis. II. THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT A. Copyrightability Copyright law in this country is governed by a federal statute, the Copyright Act of 1976. 12 Copyright protection arises automatically when an author fixes an original work in any tangible medium of expression." Under the statute the owner of a copyright may register his or her copyright claim with the Copyright Office, but no registration is required to create the rights of copyright." Registration is, however, a prerequisite to initiating an action for copyright infringement." Although copyright protects only original works, an author meets the originality requirement by simply creating the work. Originality requires neither novelty nor uniqueness.'" To be original, a work need only be created independently by the author Pub.