Opinion ID: 608143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Comparison

Text: 86 Finally, after conducting an analysis to filter out the nonprotectable material, the judge attempted to compare the remaining core of material, the copyrightable expression. See 3 Nimmer § 13.03[F], at 13-99. Once a court has sifted out all elements of the allegedly infringed program which are 'ideas' or are [other unprotected material], there may remain a core of protectable expression. Altai, 982 F.2d at 710. The analysis at this point poses essentially a value judgment, involving an assessment of the importance of the material that was copied. 3 Nimmer § 13.03[F], at 13-102; see Altai, 982 F.2d at 710. 87 NESS concedes there are many similarities in the two programs, but contends that after filtration there is no protectable expression remaining to compare. Reply Brief of Appellant at 18. Having rejected NESS' arguments concerning the filtration step, we disagree. We think the judge, after his comparison analysis, had an adequate basis for observing many significant similarities in the protectable aspects of the Autoskill program and the allegedly infringing NESS program. 793 F.Supp. at 1569. 25 88 The judge identified similarities in the three basic tests used in the programs. The judge concluded that in the oral reading tests in both programs, a word or words come up on the screen and the student attempts to read it orally and both programs require a trainer to decide whether or not the word is read correctly and to record speed and accuracy into the computer. The judge concluded that in the auditory visual matching test, or audio identification test, in both programs three word choices appear on the screen and an auditory stimulus of a target word or nonsense word is presented to the student. The student must select which word he hears and indicate his response by hitting the 1, 2 or 3 key. Id. In the visual match, or visual identification, test in both programs, the judge concluded, the screen displays four words or nonsense words. The target word is isolated from the other words and the student is expected to choose one of the remaining three words which is identical to the target word. Id. 89 The judge noted that both programs use alternating words and nonsense words. The judge concluded that both programs record speed, or latency of response, and accuracy data and use the information in the same manner. Id. Further, the judge concluded that in both programs the students are trained according to the same three testing topics. In both programs, the judge noted, students receive immediate feedback about accuracy. The judge concluded that the criteria for a student's progressing to the next subprogram is similar in both programs. Further, the judge noted that in both programs: the presentation of skills proceeds hierarchically from the simple to the complex; a visual scanning test is administered in combination with the other tests to determine the student's subtype; matrices record student progress within each section; and graphs are used for the same purposes. Id. 90 To show lack of similarity of the Autoskill and NESS programs, a prime witness for NESS was Mr. Johnson-Laird. The trial judge noted his strong background in computer software but said he has no background in the area of reading education or its software. Id. at 1561. Johnson-Laird's testimony particularly sought to prove lack of similarity between the NESS and Autoskill programs. He presented charts showing differences in logic flow between the display screens of both programs. 91 We have examined the testimony of Mr. Johnson-Laird on these points, e.g., Appellant's App. at 317-328, and Ex. 10, photographs of the program screens, id. at 473-78, used in his testimony. He said the Autoskill screen does have elements, similar to that of NESS, that were arguably protectable, Appellant's App. at 397, identifying the matrices here, when you take them as an entire entity. Id. at 398; see also id. at 400-401. He said, however, that there was not substantial similarity in the look and feel of the Autoskill and NESS screens, stressing the way NESS uses color. Id. at 401-03. He referred also to the fact that in the NESS program, one's voice could be recorded and played back, which was not done on the Autoskill program. Id. at 442. 92 The judge explained that he rejected NESS' suggestions of differences because the differences (color in NESS' program absent in Autoskill's, word choices appearing in phases in NESS' program while those on the Autoskill screen appear at the same time) were not important or substantial parts of Autoskill's program. The judge gave greater weight to Dr. Olson's testimony that the differences were not pedagogically significant. 793 F.Supp. at 1570-71. We are satisfied the judge's crediting of the Autoskill witness' testimony over that of NESS' witness was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. 26 93 In sum, we affirm the judge's conclusion that Autoskill satisfied its burden on the substantial similarity requirement for purposes of the preliminary injunction. Having satisfied its burden at this stage on both elements required to show copying--access and substantial similarity--Autoskill thus demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Our ruling, of course, is for purposes of the preliminary injunction alone and does not represent a final determination on the substantial similarity issue. B. Irreparable Harm 94 The district judge held that Autoskill had made the requisite showing of irreparable harm on two alternative grounds. First, the judge applied the rule a leading commentary describes as the prevailing one in the circuits: a showing of a prima facie case of copyright infringement or of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits usually raises a presumption of irreparable harm for preliminary injunction purposes. 3 Nimmer § 14.06[A], at 14-78.13 to -78.14; 793 F.Supp. at 1572. We need not decide whether to adopt that test because of the second ground on which the trial judge found irreparable injury--one that is independently sufficient. 95 In his second holding on irreparable injury, the judge cited testimony that from NESS' conduct, Autoskill will suffer from a loss of uniqueness in the marketplace. 793 F.Supp. at 1572. The judge also noted testimony that if the NESS program produced poor results, such results would affect Autoskill's reputation. Id. Further, the judge noted testimony that Autoskill had no way of ascertaining how many customers were lost to NESS. Id. On the basis of this evidence, the judge held that Autoskill had demonstrated irreparable harm by presenting evidence that the NESS program jeopardizes Autoskill's investment and competitive position and thus shows irreparable harm. Id. 96 We are satisfied that the judge's conclusion that a danger of irreparable harm was shown was not in error. C. Balance of Hardships 97 Autoskill was also required to demonstrate that the injury it would sustain if the injunction did not issue outweighed the potential harm that the injunction would cause to NESS. See Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 356-57 (10th Cir.1986). The district judge observed that while NESS argued that the injunction would have a devastating impact on its business, it presented no evidence to support the contention. 793 F.Supp. at 1572. However, even assuming the injunction would have such a devastating effect on NESS, the judge adopted the reasoning of other courts that a knowing infringer cannot be 'permitted to construct its business around its infringement.'  Id. (quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1255 (3d Cir.1983)). Thus the judge made a primarily legal ruling on the factor. 98 Autoskill's burden on this factor was to demonstrate that the harm it would sustain without an injunction outweighed the potential harm of an injunction to NESS. Autoskill presented evidence that it would sustain at least some harm; under the usual application of the balancing test, the judge did not make it clear how this potential harm to Autoskill outweighed the harm it assumed NESS would sustain. Instead, the judge recognized that in the copyright context the four factors require sensitive weighing. Stated another way, the district judge adopted the view that the potential injury to an allegedly infringing party caused by an injunction merits little equitable consideration and is insufficient to outweigh the continued wrongful infringement. Georgia Television Co. v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 939, 949 (N.D.Ga.1989). We agree that placing too much weight on this factor would reward infringers. Under the law that the judge applied to the factor, which we rule was correct, Autoskill made a persuasive showing that the balance of the harms weighed in its favor.