|
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. is almost directly on point. 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992). In Altai, a coder was working for CA and left to work for Altai. Altai asked him to create a program similar to one he had been working on at CA. He did so, but incorporated 30% of the code directly from a program he worked on at CA. Once Altai found out, they removed the 30% and rewrote that part completely from scratch. CA sued, claiming that the rewritten part violated CA's copyright.
The first thing to realize about copyright law is that it does not protect an idea, only an expression of the idea. However, compared to purely aesthetic works, computer programs contain sets of functions essential to the program. The court conlcuded "those elements of a computer program that are necessarily incidental to its function are similarily unprotectable." The court therefore enacted a filtration process to separate the protectable from the unprotectable portions of computer programs.
Congress recognized the applicability of the merger doctrine to computer programs. CONTU stated:
The court recognized that
and therefore there is an efficiency concern.
The court also noted that:
In summary, working on one codebase does not automatically preclude one from ever working on a new one. If you attempt to create what is essentially a recreation of the codebase, you are definitely pushing it. However, if you attempt to create a new codebase and limit your copying to essentially functional elements (in the name of efficiency), you should be OK. Being influenced by the work of another does not automatically mean you are creating a derivative or copy. After all, most works are influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by something else.
|