Structure, sequence and organization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:31, 30 March 2020

Latest revision as of 13:46, 14 May 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 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}}

Line 93:

;Sources

{{refbegin}}

*{{cite web |ref=harv |url=http://www.bu.edu/law//central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume81/abramson.pdf

|title=Promoting Innovation in the Software Industry: A First Principles Approach to Intellectual Property Reform

|first=Bruce |last=Abramson

|year=2001

|publisher=Boston University

|accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-31}}

*{{cite web |ref=harv |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf

|title=ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DECOMPILED FILES

|publisher=U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

|first=William |last=Alsup

|date=May 11, 2012 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-06-02}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pUfFpzC3ks4C&pg=PA115

|title=Intellectual Property for the Internet

|first=J. Scott |last=Davidson

|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online |year=1997

|isbn=0471167037}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Wne6MqjEk-AC&pg=SA11-PA17

|title=Epstein on Intellectual Property

|first=Michael A. |last=Epstein

|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online |year=2006 |isbn=073555983X}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QACY2JCu4BUC&pg=PA87

|title=Software and Intellectual Property Protection: Copyright and Patent Issues for Computer and Legal Professionals

|first=Bernard A. |last=Galler

|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=1995 |isbn=0899309747}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c6IS3RnN6qAC&pg=PA89

|title=Legal Battles That Shaped the Computer Industry

|first=Lawrence D. |last=Graham

|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=1999

|isbn=1567201784}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9NKTDmiXb14C&pg=PA407

|title=Economics, Law, and Intellectual Property: Seeking Strategies for Research and Teaching in a Developing Field

|first=Ove |last=Granstrand

|publisher=Springer |year=2003 |isbn=1402077084}}

*{{cite journal |ref=harv |url=http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v10/10HarvJLTech239.pdf

|journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Technology

|volume=10 |issue=2 |date=Winter 1997

|title=COMPUTER SCIENCE CONCEPTS IN COPYRIGHT CASES: THE PATH TO A COHERENT LAW

|first1=Marci A. |last1=Hamilton |first2=Ted |last2=Sabety

|accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-30}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wepc2ljYrJEC&pg=PA170

|title=U.S. Intellectual Property Law And Policy

|first=Hugh C. |last=Hansen

|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |year=2006 |isbn=1845428668}}

*{{cite journal |ref=harv |url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2911&context=flr

|journal=Fordham Law Review

|volume=59 |issue=4 |date=January 1, 1991

|title=Copyright Protection of SSO: Replete with Internal Deficiencies and Practical Dangers

|first=Cary S. |last=Kappel

|accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-30}}

*{{cite journal |ref=harv |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57428612-94/oracle-v-google-jury-returns-partial-verdict-favoring-oracle/

|journal=CNET

|title=Oracle v. Google jury returns partial verdict, favoring Oracle

|first1=Rachel |last1=King |first2=Dan |last2=Farber

|date=May 7, 2012 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-30}}

*{{cite web |ref=harv |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/oracle-google-judge-asks-for-comment-on-eu-court-ruling/

|work=Ars Technica

|title=Oracle v. Google judge asks for comment on EU court ruling

|first=Timothy B. |last=Lee

|date=May 3, 2012 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-30}}

*{{cite web |ref=harv |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/

|work=ars technica

|title=Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated

|first=Joe |last=Mullin

|date=May 31, 2012 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-31}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y6uJ7u4331cC&pg=PA270

|title=Major Principles of Media Law

|first1=Wayne |last1=Overbeck |first2=Genelle |last2=Belmas

|publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2011 |isbn=978-0495901952}}

*{{cite web |url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2012/05/07/jury-says-google-infringed-but-it-can-t-agree-on-fair-use.aspx

*{{cite web |ref=harv

|url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2012/05/07/jury-says-google-infringed-but-it-can-t-agree-on-fair-use.aspx

|work=LexisNexis

|date=May 7, 2012

|title=Jury Says Google Infringed, But It Can't Agree On Fair Use

|first=Melissa |last=Ritti

|accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-31}}

*{{cite journal |ref=harv |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/65532/Reverse_Engineering

|journal=Computerworld

|title=Reverse-Engineering

|first=Mathew |last=Schwartz

|date=November 12, 2001 |accessdateaccess-date=2012-05-31}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mko89ZDIVx0C&pg=SA5-PA55

|title=Scott on Outsourcing: Law And Practice

|first=Michael D. |last=Scott

|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online |year=2006 |isbn=0735561788}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NMHEZ_TBBXgC&pg=SA9-PA6

|title=E-Copyright Law Handbook

|first=Laura Lee |last=Stapleton

|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online |year=2002 |isbn=0735529442}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ecPJSiHIi2kC&pg=PA11

|title=Developments In The Economics Of Copyright: Research And Analysis

|first1=Lisa |last1=Takeyama |first2=Wendy J. |last2=Gordon |first3=Ruth |last3=Towse

|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |year=2005 |isbn=1843769301}}

*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fe9af6rf3lkC&pg=PA52

|title=Intellectual Property and International Trade: The TRIPs Agreement

|first=Abdulqawi |last=Yusuf