The IT Law Wiki
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
RFID tag
Radio frequency spectrum
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
FANDOM
Fan Central
BETA
Games
Anime
Movies
TV
Video
Wikis
Explore Wikis
Community Central
Start a Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Sign In
Sign In
Register
The IT Law Wiki
34,539
pages
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
RFID tag
Radio frequency spectrum
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
Editing
Whelan v. Jaslow
Back to page
Edit
Edit source
View history
Talk (1)
Edit Page
Whelan v. Jaslow
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit appears to have already been undone.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Citation == '''Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.,''' 609 F. Supp. 1307, 225 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 156 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15336516076885890624&q=609+F.+Supp.+1307&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]), ''aff’d,'' 797 F.2d 1222, 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 481 (3d Cir. 1986) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=797+F.2d+1222&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]), ''cert. denied,'' 479 U.S. 1031 (1987). == Factual Background == Elaine Whelan, an employee of Strohl Systems, developed custom [[program]]s in EDL language for defendant’s IBM Series 1 [[computer system]]. The [[agreement]] provided that “all [[software]] developed by [Strohl] for your dental laboratory system [will] remain under our ownership.” Whelan later incorporated, obtained rights to the system from Strohl, and entered into an agreement with the defendant to market the [[program]]s. Defendant Rand Jaslow unsuccessfully attempted to develop his own system for the IBM Series 1 using the BASIC [[programming language]]. Defendants terminated the [[marketing agreement]] with plaintiff, and, using a surreptitiously obtained copy of the EDL [[source code]], [[adapt]]ed it (with expert help) for the IBM PC and marketed the adapted program under a similar name. Whelan sued for [[copyright infringement]]. == District Court Proceedings == The court held that (1) although Jaslow explained to Whelan how a dental lab worked, he was not a [[co-author]] of the [[program]]; Whelan alone was the [[author]] of both the [[source code|source]] and [[object code]]; (2) Jaslow’s use of the EDL [[source code]] to develop a competitive product, even thought not a [[literal translation]], it was a [[copyright infringement]]: {{Quote|The [[idea]] of a computerized system to control the operations of a dental lab is not [[copyrightable subject matter|subject to copyright]]. The particular [[expression]] of the [[idea]] [[create]]d and [[fixed]] in the plaintiff’s IBM-Series 1 Dentalab system, however, is [[copyrightable]], and the evidence demonstrates that defendants actually did copy that [[expression]] in writing the [[source code|source]] and [[object code]]s for their IBM-PC Dentcom system. The evidence establishes that it would be very difficult if not impossible to [[literal translation|literally translate]] a [[program]] written in EDL to a [[program]] written in BASIC. The evidence makes clear that transferring or [[convert]]ing from one [[computer language]] to another is not comparable to [[translation|translating]] a book written in English to French. At least, it would be a very inefficient method of [[copying]] a [[program]] to attempt to work solely from the [[source code]] and [[literal translation|literally translate]] it from EDL to BASIC. As I understand the evidence, in order to [[copy]] a [[program]] written in EDL for use in a [[computer]] that operates on a [[source code]] written in BASIC, one would study the method and manner that a [[computer]] receives, assembles, calculates, holds, retrieves and communicates [[data]]. This requires a study of the manner in which the [[information]] flows sequentially from one function to another. Once this is fully understood, one may copy this exact manner of operation for use in a [[computer]] that responds to commands written in a different [[source code]] language.}} The court awarded damages for [[copyright infringement]] of $42,000 for two sales of the Series 1 system after the [[marketing agreement]] ended and $101,269 for 23 sales of the IBM [[PC]] [[software]]. == Appellate Court Proceedings == The Third Circuit upheld the trial court's finding of [[copyright infringement]] based upon the defendant's [[copying]] of the "[[structure, sequence and organization]]" of plaintiff's [[software]]. While recognizing that [[copyright protection]] does not extend to the "[[idea]]" or [[functionality]] of the [[program]], the court found that similarities in the [[file structure]]s, [[screen output]]s and certain [[subroutine]]s, while not comprising a majority of the total number of lines of [[code]] in defendant's [[software]], were similarities in "[[expression]]," and therefore constituted [[copyright infringement]].<ref>797 F.2d at 1238-39.</ref> In so finding, the court set forth a test for determining the line between unprotectable [[idea]]s and the protectable [[expression]] of those [[idea]]s which test favors finding protectable [[expression]]: {{Quote|[T]he line between [[idea]] and [[expression]] may be drawn with reference to the end sought to be achieved by the [[work]] in question. In other words, ''the purpose or function of a [[utilitarian work]] would be the [[work]]'s [[idea]], and everything that is not necessary to that purpose or function would be part of the [[expression]] of the [[idea]].''<ref>''Id.'' at 1236 (emphasis in original).</ref>}} In applying the above rule, the appellate court quoted from the District Court record: {{Quote|Different [[computer system]]s may functionally serve similar purposes without being [[copies]] of each other. There is evidence in the record that there are other [[software program]]s for the business management of dental laboratories in competition with plaintiff's [[program]]. There is no contention that any of them [[copyright infringement|infringe]] although they may incorporate many of the [[idea]]s and functions.<ref>''Id.'' at 1238-39.</ref>}} == References == <references /> [[Category:Case]] [[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]] [[Category:Case-U.S.-Copyright]] [[Category:Copyright]] [[Category:Software]] [[Category:1986]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to the The IT Law Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Template used on this page:
Template:Quote
(
view source
)
Follow on IG
TikTok
Join Fan Lab