|
Analytic dissection is a concept in U.S. copyright law analysis of computer software. Analytic dissection is a tool for determining whether a work accused of copyright infringement is substantially similar to a copyright-protected work. In analytic dissection, unprotectable elements of a work are dissected out and discarded before making any comparison of the two works. These unprotectable components include ''idea'' (as contrasted with ''expression''), ''scènes à faire'' (conventional elements typical of a genre), material in the public domain, and functional aspects. As the Ninth Circuit explained in the 1988 ''Data East'' case, that such elements are common to two works does not create substantial similarity. Rather, infringing similarity must be based on the similarity of what remains after the unprotectable elements are dissected out.〔See ''Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.'', 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (video game case).〕 Subsequently, in ''Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.'',〔982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).〕 the Second Circuit applied this conceptual tool in determining whether two computer programs were substantially similar, under the name of the "Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison" test. As the Tenth Circuit concisely explained this test in ''Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical Industries'':
This legal test has generally "been applied in subsequent (law ) decisions, to the extent that it is recognised in the USA, and elsewhere, as the accepted standard."〔 30 (2000) (collecting authorities).〕 ==Parallels in patent law== A conceptually similar approach has been applied at times in US, UK, and European patent law. In ''Neilson v. Harford'', the Exchequer adopted a method of analyzing the patent-eligibility of inventions based on a natural principle or phenomenon of nature, in which the principle is treated as if part of the prior art and the remainder of the invention (i.e., the mechanical implementation of the principle) is evaluated for patentability under the usual tests (novelty, etc.). The US Supreme Court followed this approach in ''O’Reilly v. Morse'' and subsequent decisions including ''Parker v. Flook'' and ''Mayo v. Prometheus''. A similar type of analysis of obviousness or inventive level has been used under the name of the "point of novelty" test, which is suggested by the use of a Jepson claim. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Analytic dissection」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|