Copyright Protection for Computer Programs: Walking on one leg? (original) (raw)

be easily defeated because similar programs' could be extensive variations in such literal codes. Thus program judged for non-literal infringement of copyright thereby traditional doctrine of idea-expression dichotomy.2 The do states that only expressions are protected under copyrigh idea.3 This presented difficulties in determining what con and 'expressions' in a given program. Any minor possibilit functionality of the program would mean covering ide copyright law does not protect. However, after initial slips the US and UK have successfully come up with tests that a sophisticated and hence the idea/expression dichotomy in computer program protection has been thoughtfully decip India also recognizes the coherent doctrine of idea/ dichotomy. In fact, the Supreme Court of India in one of its pronouncement has clearly outlined the tests to be followed in resolving such an inquiry, although not in the context of computer program infringement.6 Hence, what remains to be seen is the response the Indian courts would offer considering the doctrinal and technical difficulties in computer program infringement analysis. The question is whether the existing test pronounced by the Supreme Court could resolve the difficulties posed by this new technology in determining the non-literal 2. This was been well elucidated in the context of non-literal infringement in a play by Learned Hand J of United States Court in Nichols v. Universal Pictures , 45 F.2d 119 (Fed. Cir. 1930). The question was whether a motion picture infringed copyright in an earlier well-known play. The court said: "It is of course essential to any literary property, whether at common law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations." However, despite the similarity of the plots and the fact that the film producer knew the plaintiffs play, the court found no infringement of copyright. Also see, R.G. Anand v. Delux Films Ltd, PTC (Supp) (1) 802 (SC), which was a similar case of first impression before the Indian Supreme Court. 3. For details, see text accompanying infra notes 9-13. 4. Functionality in a computer program is reflective of the program's behaviour. The problem with computer programs is that the codes for which copyright protection extends, represents an inner character of functionality, which is indeed valuable and definitely prone to copying. However, this functionality underlying the program is also assertive of the fact that they represent how the program works and not what the program is. Copyright assures protection for something tangible (the fixation requirement), which is only limited to what the program is viz., for the literary codes. The functionality in a program travels into the domain of abstract ideas and is hence not protected.