Opinion ID: 722407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Uncopyrightable Process ACES Menu and Submenu Command Tree Structure

Text: 22 MiTek also contends that the district court, in failing to abstract the ACES program's menu 17 and submenu command tree structure, 18 erred in concluding that it is a process and thus foreclosed from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Although the copyrightability of nonliteral elements of a computer program is an issue of first impression for our circuit, basic principles of copyright law guide us in addressing it. 23 The district court found that the method the Aces Layout Programs follow, including the menu and the sub-menu command tree structure, is a process that is not entitled to copyright protection. 864 F.Supp. at 1580. The district court's conclusion was based principally on its finding that the means by which the Aces Layout Programs undertake their task of drafting roof truss planes mimic the steps a draftsman would follow in designing a roof truss plan by hand. Id. MiTek argues that the district court's failure to abstract the ACES menu and submenu command tree structure beyond the level at which MiTek presented it to the district court led the court to conclude that it is unprotectable as a process. MiTek contends that an abstraction should have been performed by the court and that such an abstraction would have discovered substantial protectable expression. 19 24 The First Circuit recently addressed the issue of [w]hether a computer menu command hierarchy constitutes copyrightable subject matter. Lotus, 49 F.3d at 813. The Lotus court held that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable 'method of operation'  that provided the means by which users control and operate Lotus 1-2-3. Id. at 815. In reaching its conclusion, the First Circuit analogized the buttons that operate a computer program to those that operate a VCR, the latter being an obvious example of a method of operation. Id. at 817. Unlike the Lotus court, we need not decide today whether a main menu and submenu command tree structure is uncopyrightable as a matter of law. We agree with the conclusion reached by the district court that the ACES menu and submenu command tree structure is uncopyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). MiTek's argument that the district court erred in denying protection under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) is without merit. 20 25 A related argument advanced by MiTek is that the district court erred in characterizing the use of trapezoids in truss design as a means of visually depicting planes in the ACES program. MiTek contends that the trapezoids are used not to depict planes, but rather to indicate to the program user that a pitched or sloping plane for a particular wall has been defined. MiTek states that [a]s part of defining the shape of the roof using the concept of intersecting planes, after all the walls are entered, and after information about each plane is entered for a particular wall, a trapezoid shape surrounds the wall on the screen. Brief of Appellants at 38. MiTek contends that the use of a trapezoid in this manner is a purely arbitrary, expressive feature. Id. We are not certain that the district court misconstrued the purpose behind the use of trapezoids, 21 but, even if it did, this use of trapezoids lacks sufficient originality to be entitled to copyright protection. 22 26 3. Mimicry of the ACES Program With the Way a Draftsman Draws a Truss Layout by Hand 27 Closely related to the menu and submenu command tree issue is MiTek's contention that the district court erred in concluding that the ACES program mimicked the steps that a draftsman would take in drawing and designing a roof truss plan by hand. See MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1580. MiTek contends that its programs do not mimic the steps taken by a draftsman, because, inter alia, a mouse is used, the walls are drawn in different colors, and a pop-up keypad is used on the screen to enter numeric information. Appellants Brief at 33-38. We find that the district court was not suggesting that the ACES program was an exact correlation to the steps that a draftsman would take, given the different mediams that are being used (i.e., a computer as compared to a pen and paper). Constraints associated with computer programs and computer design dictate a somewhat different design process. As a general matter, however, the idea of closely correlating the ACES program to the longhand steps taken by a draftsman was the constraining force in the design of the menu and submenu command tree structure. The logic inherent in this step-by-step process renders the resulting program unoriginal in that such logic may only be expressed in only a limited number of ways. More than a minor departure from the logical sequence renders the result unusable. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that this structure is not entitled to copyright protection. 28 4. Consideration of the Copyrightability of the ACES Program as a Compilation 29 MiTek argues that the district court gave short shrift to its contention that the selection, coordination, and arrangement embodied in the ACES program and its user interfaces are entitled to compilation copyright protection. 23 It points out that the Supreme Court, in Feist, 499 U.S. at 359-60, 111 S.Ct. at 1295, noted that a work comprised only of facts is copyrightable to the extent that such facts are selected, arranged, or organized (and thus presented) in an original way. This protection is limited, however, and extends only to the work as a whole, and only if the selection, coordination, or arrangement is sufficiently original to be copyrightable. 30 We acknowledge that a user interface, here a screen display (itself an audiovisual work), may be entitled to copyright protection as a compilation. In order to receive this protection, however, the compilation must be original and expressive. MiTek cites to Digital Communications Assocs., Inc. v. Softklone Distrib. Corp., 659 F.Supp. 449, 463 (N.D.Ga.1987), as a case in which a court concluded that the status screen, which is a compilation, is copyrightable to the extent of its arrangement and design of parameter/command terms. Underlying this holding, however, was the Softklone court's finding that the copyright holder's compilation met the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 102, namely, that it was (1) an original work of authorship (2) fixed in a tangible medium from which it (3) can be perceived and (4) not an idea or necessary expression of an idea. Id. Even this determination was not the end of the analysis in Softklone, for, once the court determined that the status screens were protectable, it still compared the putative infringer's status screens to those of the copyright holder. Only after the court concluded that they were virtually identical did it hold that the compilation copyright in the status screens was infringed. Id. at 465. 31 This circuit has not established the standard that should be used in analyzing claims of compilation copyright infringement of nonliteral elements of a computer program. Today, we join the Ninth Circuit in adopting the bodily appropriation of expression or virtual identicality standard. 24 See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that, in the case of alleged infringement of a work as a whole (i.e., a compilation), there can be no infringement unless the works are virtually identical), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1176, 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995); Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197, 205 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that [a]s with factual compilations, copyright infringement of compilations consisting of largely uncopyrightable elements should not be found in the absence of 'bodily appropriation of expression' ) (citation omitted). 32 In analyzing MiTek's compilation claim, the district court applied the virtual identicality standard and concluded that the visual display of the Arc[E] program differs sufficiently, if not substantially, from the Aces Layout Programs to preclude a finding of virtual identicality. MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1584. This conclusion was based in part on the fact that [t]he Arc[E] Program depicts its commands as icons in the Windows environment, rather than as words in the Aces Layout Programs. 25 Id. Assuming without deciding that the nonliteral elements of the ACES user interface are a protectable compilation, we agree with the district court that there is not a virtual identicality between the ACES program and TrussPro, and thus MiTek's compilation copyright infringement claim must fail. 33 5. The Standard Applied in Comparing the Elements Found to be Copyrightable 34 MiTek further contends that the district court, in comparing to TrussPro the five nonliteral elements of the ACES program that it deemed to be protectable, erroneously employed a substantial identicality standard rather than the appropriate substantial similarity standard. MiTek's challenge is based on the following portion of the district court's opinion: When comparing the core protectable elements of the copyright-holder's program to the alleged infringer, the Court will employ the substantial identicality standard applied by the Ninth Circuit to nonliteral elements of computer programs, such as visual displays. 864 F.Supp. at 1578-79. 35 If the district court did apply the substantial identicality standard in performing the comparison portion of the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, then it erred in doing so. Our circuit, in applying the Altai test, employs the substantial similarity standard in comparing what remains after the abstraction and filtration steps with respect to noncompilation copyrighted works. See Bateman, 79 F.3d at 1541-45. We are not convinced, however, that the district court incorrectly applied the substantial identicality standard, because in the comparison section of the opinion, the district court stated: 36 Having distilled the Plaintiffs' programs to their core of protectable expression, the Court now must compare these elements to the Defendant's program. If any of the core elements have been copied, the Court will look at the relative importance of the copied elements to the overall program to determine whether or not the Aces Layout Programs are substantially similar to the Arc[E] Program.... 37 The Court finds that of the five protectable elements identified in the Aces Layout Programs, four are substantially similar to elements in the Arc[E] programs. 38 MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1584 (emphasis added). Based on its comparison, it appears that the district court used imprecise language regarding substantial identicality in an earlier portion of its opinion and later correctly compared for substantial similarity in reaching its ultimate conclusion. There is no indication that it applied a substantial identicality standard in its comparison analysis; in fact, the language of the district court's opinion leads us to conclude that it correctly compared for substantial similarity. Thus, there is no merit to MiTek's contention that the district court erred in comparing the protectable elements of the ACES program to elements in TrussPro. 39 6. De Minimus Copying of the Copyrightable Elements of the ACES Program 40 MiTek argues that the district court erred in concluding that the copying by ArcE of the protectable elements of the ACES programs was de minimis and therefore not actionable. In its comparison analysis, after concluding that, of the five protectable elements of the ACES programs, four in TrussPro were substantially similar, the district court concluded: 41 A finding of a substantial similarity [of certain program elements] does not end the Court's inquiry, however. To find infringement, the Court must also determine that the Arc[E] Program has appropriated substantial elements of the Aces Layout Programs. The Court has reviewed the programs and concludes that these five elements are not significant in the context of the Aces Layout Programs as a whole. 42 864 F.Supp. at 1584. Based on this finding, the court concluded that the copying was de minimis and not actionable. 43 MiTek cites a scholarly treatise on copyright law for the proposition that even a quantitatively small amount of copied material may be sufficiently important to the operation of plaintiff's program to justify a finding of substantial similarity. 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[F] at 13-146 (1996) (footnote omitted) (hereinafter Nimmer). Certainly even a quantitatively small amount of copied material may justify a finding of substantial similarity, but, as Nimmer correctly observes, [i]n some cases, the amount of material copied will be so small as to be de minimis, and will not justify a finding of substantial similarity. 26 Id. (footnote omitted). We agree with the district court that the elements that were considered original and appropriated were not of such significance to the overall program to warrant an ultimate finding of substantial similarity and hence infringement. The burden is on the copyright owner to demonstrate the significance of the copied features, and, in this case, MiTek has failed to meet that burden.