The uneasy case for software copyrights revisited

George Washington Law Review

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1746-1782

  Samuelson, Pamela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860210283     PISSN: 00168076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Stephen Breyer, The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs, 84 HARV. L. REV. 281 (1970).
2. NAT'L COMM'N ON NEW TECHNOLOGICAL USES OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS, FINAL REPORT 15-16 (1979) [hereinafter CONTU REPORT].
3. Pamela Samuelson, CONTU Revisited: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Machine-Executable Form, 1984 DUKE L.J. 663, 663 [hereinafter Samuelson, CONTU Revisited].
4. Pamela Samuelson, Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1921, 1949-50 & n.191 (2007) [hereinafter Samuelson, Why Copyright Excludes].
5. Copyright Law Revision: Hearing on S. 597 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. 196-97 (1967) (statement of Arthur R. Miller, Chairman, Nat'l Comm'n on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works).
6. Arthur R. Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?, 106 HARV. L. REV. 977, 1045 (1993).
7. Pamela Samuelson, Creating a New Kind of Intellectual Property Law: Applying the Lessons of the Chip Law to Computer Programs, 70 MINN. L. REV. 471, 473-74 (1985).
8. DELOITTE, CLOUD COMPUTING: FORECASTING CHANGE 5-7 (2009), available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Ireland/Local%20Assets/Documents/ ie-Consulting-CloudComputing-09.pdf.
9. Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, § 101, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (codified as amended in sections 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332).
10. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103, 107 (1879) (holding that copyright protection does not extend to useful arts, such as bookkeeping systems, that are depicted in copyrighted works).
11. Pamela Samuelson et al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308, 2320-24 (1994).
12. White- Smith Music Publ'g Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 18 (1908) (ruling that piano rolls were not "copies" of copyrighted musical compositions in part because the rolls could not be read by humans).
13. Data Cash Sys., Inc. v. JS&A Grp., Inc., 480 F. Supp. 1063, 1068 (N.D. Ill. 1979), aff'd on other grounds, 628 F.2d 1038 (7th Cir. 1980).
14. Duncan M. Davidson, Protecting Computer Software: A Comprehensive Analysis, 1983 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 611, 652 n.72 (1983).
15. Elmer Galbi, Proposal for New Legislation to Protect Computer Programming, 17 BULL. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y 280, 283-92 (1970). The World Intellectual Property Organization promulgated a sui generis proposal in the 1970s.
16. WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROP. ORG., INT'L BUREAU, MODEL PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE (1978).
17. Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1237 (3d Cir. 1986).
18. F. M. Scherer, The Innovation Lottery, in EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: INNOVATION POLICY FOR THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY 3, 15-21 (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss et al. eds., 2001).
19. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
20. Brief Amicus Curiae of International Business Machines Corporation in Support of Neither Party, Bilski v. Doll, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2009) (No. 08-964), available at http://www.patentlyo.com/08-964-ibm.pdf.
21. MARTIN CAMPBELL-KELLY, FROM AIRLINE RESERVATIONS TO SONIC THE HEDGEHOG: A HISTORY OF THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY 6 (2003).
22. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1249-55 (3d Cir. 1983) (upholding the validity of Apple's copyrights in its operating-systems programs).
23. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1251-52 (3d Cir. 1983).
24. ANTHONY L. CLAPES, SOFTWARE, COPYRIGHT, AND COMPETITION: THE "LOOK AND FEEL" OF THE LAW 166-72 (1989) (discussing the IBM-Fujitsu dispute and its resolution).
25. Alisa E. Anderson, The Future of Software Copyright Protection: Arbitration v. Litigation, 12 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT L.J. 1, 17-18 (1989).
26. JONATHAN BAND & MASANOBU KATOH, INTERFACES ON TRIAL: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTEROPERABILITY IN THE GLOBAL SOFTWARE INDUSTRY 30 (1995).
27. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 980 F. Supp. 537, 539 (D.D.C. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
28. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 799 F. Supp. 1006, 1019-20 (N.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). Command-line interfaces, such as MS-DOS, required users to remember and enter specific names to invoke particular functions that users wanted to be performed.
29. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970) (finding that the copyright for greeting cards was infringed because of similarities in the "look and feel" of the plaintiff's and defendant's cards).
30. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994).
31. KEN AULETTA, WORLD WAR 3.0: MICROSOFT AND ITS ENEMIES, at xix-xxi (2001).
32. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000), aff'd in relevant part, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
33. Jon Brodkin, Windows on Verge of Dropping Below 90% Market Share, NETWORK WORLD (Jan. 13, 2011, 2:25 PM), http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011311- windows-on-verge-of-dropping.html.
34. Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 877 (3d Cir. 1982) (finding infringement of videogame copyrights).
35. Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1231 (3d Cir. 1986).
36. Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1514-15 (9th Cir. 1992).
37. Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
38. J. H. Reichman, Computer Programs as Applied Scientific Know-How: Implications of Copyright Protection for Commercialized University Research, 42 VAND. L. REV. 639, 690-96 (1989).
39. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 52, 55, 68 (D. Mass. 1990) (relying on Whelan as support for finding a spreadsheet programs' user-interface design copyrightable).
40. Pearl Sys., Inc. v. Competition Elecs., Inc., 8 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1520, 1524 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (relying on Whelan to find program user interface copyrightable).
41. Donald S. Chisum et al., Last Frontier Conference Report on Copyright Protection of Computer Software, 30 JURIMETRICS J. 15, 20 (1989).
42. David Nimmer et al., A Structured Approach to Analyzing the Substantial Similarity of Computer Software in Copyright Infringement Cases, 20 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 625, 629-30 (1988).
43. Pamela Samuelson, Reflections on the State of American Software Copyright Law and the Perils of Teaching It, 13 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 61, 63 (1988).
44. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
45. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 836 (10th Cir. 1993).
46. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 359 (1991).
47. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (rejecting claim of copyright infringement based on "look and feel" of spreadsheet program).
48. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir. 1994).
49. Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1525-26 (9th Cir. 1992) (addressing the reverse-engineering issue two months after the Altai decision).
50. Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).
51. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10, 715 (2d Cir. 1992).
52. Allen R. Grogan, Decompilation and Disassembly: Undoing Software Protection, COMPUTER LAW., Feb. 1984, at 1.
53. Oskar Liivak, The Forgotten Originality Requirement: A Constitutional Hurdle for Gene Patents, 87 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 261, 297 (2005) (advocating adoption of the "merger" doctrine for patents).
54. Josh Lerner & Feng Zhu, What is the Impact of Software Patent Shifts?: Evidence from Lotus v. Borland 26 (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 11, 168, 2005).
55. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71, 73 (1972) (ruling that an algorithm for transforming binary-coded decimals to pure binary form was not patentable subject matter).
56. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192-93 (1981).
57. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Commc'ns, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This led to a surge in patents for software innovations that has not abated, notwithstanding a Supreme Court decision that limited patent subject matter to some degree.
58. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
59. Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CAL. L. REV. 1, 10-11 (2001) (discussing the various Federal Circuit decisions that led to the patentability of algorithms).
60. Gideon Parchomovsky & R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios, 154 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 30-31 (2005). Software patents may be useful to firms for obtaining financing from venture capitalists.
61. Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?, 83 TEX. L. REV. 961, 977 (2005).
62. Jane C. Ginsburg, Four Reasons and a Paradox: The Manifest Superiority of Copyright over Sui Generis Protection of Computer Software, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2559, 2561 (1994).
63. Software Publishing in the U.S., IBISWORLD (Feb. 9, 2011), http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1239.
64. BUS. SOFTWARE ALLIANCE, SOFTWARE INDUSTRY FACTS AND FIGURES 1 (2009), available at http://www.bsa.org/country/Public%20Policy/~/media/Files/Policy/ Security/General/sw-factsfigures.ashx.
65. Market Report, "Software: Global Industry Guide", published, PR-INSIDE.COM (May 17, 2010), http://www.pr-inside.com/market-report-software- global-industry-r1894504.htm.
66. YOCHAI BENKLER, THE WEALTH OF NETWORKS: HOW SOCIAL PRODUCTION TRANSFORMS MARKETS AND FREEDOM (2006).
67. BARBARA VAN SCHEWICK, INTERNET ARCHITECTURE AND INNOVATION (2010).
68. JONATHAN ZITTRAIN, THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET-AND HOW TO STOP IT (2008).
69. Cliff Saran, Lessons for Software Developers from Toyota's ABS Safety Alert, COMPUTER WKLY. (Feb. 12, 2010, 12:30 PM), http://www.computerweekly.com/ Articles/2010/02/12/240286/Lessons-for-software-developers-from-Toyota39s-ABS- safety.htm.
70. Paul Kaihla, The Ghosts in the Machines, CANADIAN BUS., Sept. 17, 2001, at 25, 26 (noting that "the average American encounters 150 embedded systems on any given day").
71. Bureau of Econ. Analysis, Data Tables: Software Investment and Prices, by Type, U.S. DEP'T COM., http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/soft-invest.xls(last updated Aug. 18, 2009).
72. Alison Diana, Open Source Approaching 30% of Enterprise Software, INFORMATIONWEEK (Feb. 9, 2011), http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/ enterprise-apps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229208752.
73. Open Source Software Market Accelerated by Economy and Increased Acceptance from Enterprise Buyers, IDC Finds, BUSINESSWIRE (July 29, 2009), http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090729005107/en/Open-Source-Software- Market-Accelerated-Economy-Increased.
74. Brian W. Carver, Note, Share and Share Alike: Understanding and Enforcing Open Source and Free Software Licenses, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 443, 443-44 (2005).
75. Pamela Samuelson, IBM's Pragmatic Embrace of Open Source, 49 COMM. ACM, Oct. 2006, at 21 (explaining why IBM is willing to commit significant resources to supporting the development of Linux).
76. About Sourceforge, SOURCEFORGE, http://sourceforge.net/about (last visited July 24, 2011).
77. JOSH LERNER & MARK SCHANKERMAN, THE COMINGLED CODE: OPEN SOURCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (2010).
78. STEVEN WEBER, THE SUCCESS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE 195-97 (2007).
79. DELOITTE, CLOUD COMPUTING: STORMS ON THE HORIZON 2 (2010), available at http://www.johnseelybrown.com/cloudcomputingdisruption.pdf.
80. Frank Gens, IT Cloud Services Forecast-2008, 2012: A Key Driver of New Growth, IDC EXCHANGE (Oct. 8, 2008), http://blogs.idc.com/ie/?p=224.
81. Janna Quitney Anderson & Lee Rainie, The Future of Cloud Computing, PEWRESEARCHCENTER (June 11, 2010), http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/ Reports/2010/PIP-Future-of-the-Internet-cloud-computing.pdf. Thisisalreadybeginningtohappen.Id.
82. SALESFORCE, http://www.salesforce.com (last visited July 24, 2011).
83. Cloud Power, MICROSOFT, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud/default. aspx?fbid=5ONpXX7dQCJ (last visited July 22, 2011).
84. MICHAEL CUSAMANO, THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE: WHAT EVERY MANAGER, PROGRAMMER, AND ENTREPRENEUR MUST KNOW TO THRIVE IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD 273-74 (2004).
85. IBM, 2010 ANNUAL REPORT 25-26 (2010), available at ftp://public.dhe.ibm. com/annualreport/2010/2010-ibm-annual.pdf.
86. Julie E. Cohen, Lochner in Cyberspace: The New Economic Orthodoxy of "Rights Management, " 97 MICH. L. REV. 462, 521 n.221 (1998).
87. COMPUTER SCI. & TELECOMMS. BD., NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE DIGITAL DILEMMA: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE 152-76, 282-303 (2d prtg. 2000) (discussing technical protection measures and their uses to protect software and other forms of copyrighted content).
88. Pamela Samuelson & Kurt Opsahl, Licensing Information in the Global Information Market: Freedom of Contract Meets Public Policy, 21 EUR. INTELL. PROP. REV. 386, 387-88 (1999) (discussing competing views on the enforceability of mass-market licenses). One recent Ninth Circuit decision has upheld the enforceability of a shrink-wrap license restriction on transfers (i.e., resales) of copies of licensed software.
89. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 2010).
90. Stuart J.H. Graham et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1255, 1290 fig.1 (2009).
91. BUS. SOFTWARE ALLIANCE, SIXTH ANNUAL BSA-IDC GLOBAL SOFTWARE '08 PIRACY STUDY 1 (2009), available at http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2008/studies/ globalpiracy2008.pdf.