Structure, sequence and organization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:59, 2 March 2021

Latest revision as of 13:46, 14 May 2025

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Intellectual property}}

'''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.{{sfn|Kappel|1991|p=699}}

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.{{sfn|Abramson|2001|p=57}}

More recently, the concept has been used in ''[[Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.]]''{{sfn|Lee|2012}}

Line 47:

==Computer Associates v. Altai==

{{main|Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.}}

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 bybe protected by copyright where appropriate.{{sfn|Takeyama|Gordon|Towse|2005|p=11}}

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."{{sfn|Hamilton|Sabety|1997|p=250}}

Line 65:

However, the courts have tried to maintain common standards and tests for both types of SSO.{{sfn|Epstein|2006|p=11-17}}

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 ComputersComputer]] sued [[Microsoft]] and [[Hewlett-Packard]] for copying the [[Classic Mac OS|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.{{sfn|Overbeck|Belmas|2011|p=270-271}}