TRASH TALKING: THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE MichaelF. Morgan* Since the early 1980s the question of how to Depuis le debut des annges 1980, la question protectintellectualproperty rights in computer de savoir comment protdger les droits de softwarehas been thesubject ofintense debate. proprijtgintellectuelle relatifs aux logiciels a Earlyin thisdebate some academicssuggested fait l'objet d'un vif d~bat. Peu apras le thatcomputersoftware would be bestprotected commencement de ce dkbat, des universitaires under sui generis legislation.However, it has ont 6mis l'opinion que les logiciels seraient now become apparentthat copyright will be mieux proteges par une loi sui generis. theprimarylegalmechanismfortheprotection Cependant, il est maintenant 6vident que le of intellectual property rights in computer droit d'auteur sera le principal m~canisme software. In the United States a number of juridiquedeprotection des droitsdepropriktg Circuit Courts have consideredthe scope of intellectuellerelatifs aux logiciels.Aux tats- 1994 CanLIIDocs 32 protectionto beprovidedunder copyright and Unis, plusieurs Circuit Courts ont examin6 la come to different conclusions. Some of these portge de la protection accordge par le droit decisionsthreaten to extenda de facto monopoly d'auteur et sont arrivges L des conclusions over key new technologies. Other decisions diffrentes. Certaines d~cisions renduespar have sought to balance the need to reward ces tribunauxmenacentd'gtendreunmonopole developers with the need to provide access to de facto L de nouvelles technologies clds. these new technologies.It now appearsthat in D'autres decisions ont cherchg ti crger un the United States this less protectionist view quilibreentre la n~cessit6de rcompenserles may prevail. crgateurs et la ncessitg d'avoir accas t ces While the question ofscope has arisenin nouvelles technologies. 11 semble maintenant Canadiancourts there hasyet to be a detailed que cette vision moinsprotectionnistepourrait analysisofthe type ofprotection thatshould be privaloiraux Atats-Unis. provided under the CanadianCopyright Act. Bien que la question de laportgede cette An examination of Anglo-Canadian protection ait t soulevgedevantlestribunaux jurisprudence reveals that there has been a canadiens, il reste ifaireune analysed~taillge tendency to support strong copyright de la protection qui devrait otre accordgepar protection. However, this paper will suggest la loi canadiennesur le droit d'auteur et la that strong copyright protection of computer jurisprudence aff~rente. Un examen de la softwaremayimpedetechnologicalinnovation, jurisprudenceanglo-canadienne r~vale qu'on and threaten the development of a strong a eu tendance hfavoriserune solideprotection * Michael Morgan is a recent graduate of the University of Ottawa Law School. He also has a B.Sc. and M. Math in computer science and has worked as a member ofscientific staffat Bell-Northern Research in Ottawa. The author would like to thank Glen Bloom of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt for his helpful suggestions and criticisms. Any errors which remain are the result of the author's views prevailing. This article was written before the British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Prism Hospital Software Inc. v. HospitalMedicalRecordslnstitute,and theNinth CircuitCourt ofAppeal's decision inApple ComputerInc v. Microsoft Corp. "Trash Talking" has the distinction of being the prize-winning piece in the first annual Fasken Campbell Godfrey / OrrAwA LAw RmEVw student writing competition. The Toronto law firm Fasken Campbell Godfrey has generously underwritten the $500 prize with the hopes of encouraging the production of publishable works by University ofOttawa law students. On the occasion ofthe 25th anniversary ofthe OttaWA LAW REvisw, the Senior Board ofthe Review founded an annual writing competition for all students enrolled in the Common and Civil law sections of the Faculty. The establishment of two prizes, one in each official language, resulted from the idea of promoting scholarship in both French and English. Upon completion of the prize committee's deliberation, Mr. Morgan's article was chosen as winner of the English prize. Following subsequent consideration by the Senior Board of the Review, the winning submission was accepted for publication. Ottawa law Review/Revue de droit d'Ottawa [Vol. 26:2 software industry. This paperwill also suggest par le droitd'auteur. Cependant,l'auteur de that Canadian legislation andjurisprudence cet articleestime qu'une solideprotection par can support a lessprotectionist approach, and ledroitd'auteurpourraitentraverl'innovation furthermore, that such an approach can both technologique et menacer l'essor d"uneforte rewardcreators andpreserve public access to industrie du logiciel. En outre, l'auteur est key technologies. d'avis que la lkgislation et la jurisprudence canadiennespeuventfavoriser une approche moinsprotectionnisteetque, parailleurs, cette approche peut d la fois r~compenser les crgateurs et preserver l'acc~s du public aux technologiescl~s. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................... .....................................................................................427 II. THE NATURE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. .....................................................................................433 1994 CanLIIDocs 32 A. Behaviour....................................................................................................................... 433 B. Interoperabilityand Standardization............................................................................ 433 C. Reverse Engineering...................................................................................................... 437 D. The Software Development Process .............................................................................. 439 E. Ease of Copying ............................................................................................................. 440 III. INTERINATIONAL OBLIGATIONS .................................................................................................. 441 IV. THE LEGAL ISSUES .................................................................................................................. 442 A. Reverse Engineering...................................................................................................... 443 1. The American Position on Reverse Engineering..................................................... 443 2. The Status of Reverse Engineeringin Canada........................................................ 447 (a) CanadianJurisprudence .................................................................................. 447 (b) Reverse Engineering Under Canadian Law ..................................................... 449 (c) ProposedTreatment of Reverse Engineeringin Canada ................................. 452 B. Protectionof the Non-LiteralElements of Computer Software ..................................... 454 1. The American Position on Non-Literal Elements .................................................... 454 2. Protectionof Non-Literal Elements in Canada....................................................... 458 (a) CanadianCase Law ......................................................................................... 459 (b) Possible Protection ofNon-LiteralElements Under CanadianLaw ............... 461 (c) Skill-and-Labour Based Protection ofNon-Literal Elements .......................... 465 (d) ProposedSolution: Prohibition ofAnti-Competitive Behaviour ..................... 468 C. Protection of Computer UserInterfaces ........................................................................ 471 1. The American Positionon Computer UserInterfaces ............................................ 471 2. Protectionof UserInterfaces in Canada ................................................................ 474 (a) CanadianCase Law ......................................................................................... 474 (b) Possible Protection of User Interfaces Under CanadianLaw ......................... 476 (c) Skill-and-LabourBased Protection of UserInterfaces ................ 481 (d) ProposedSolution: Protection Under Sui Generis Legislation ....................... 482 V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 484 1994] Trash Talking I don'twantto endup withthis casesaying, "Oh, well, all wehaveto do is change atrash can orchangethis or that."That isn't whatthis caseis involving. We didn'tbring asmall case; we brought a case oftremendous significance to the client and to the industry. It's virtually the most important- certainly the most important case I have ever tried-but it's important because of the impact, the importance of this intellectual property asset of Apple's that they created and they owned and the totality of that expression. Counsel, Apple Computer, Inc.' A simple comparison ofthe "Waste Basket" icons used inNewWave 3.0 andNewWave 1.0 reveals that each icon is dissimilarfrom the "Trash" icons used in the Macintosh and Lisa works. The "Trash" icon in Macintosh Finder is a two-dimensional side view of. an outdoor alley-style cylindrical garbage can. The depiction includes a set of four vertical lines to simulate a ribbed or fluted surface, and a closed lid with a handle on top. The Lisa Desktop "Waste Basket" icon shows the same view of an alley-style garbage can, also