Apple Comput., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. - 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)

Rule:

Courts traditionally determined whether copying sufficient to constitute infringement has taken place under a two-part test having "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" components. The extrinsic prong was a test for similarity of ideas based on external criteria; analytic dissection and expert testimony could be used, if helpful. The intrinsic prong was a test for similarity of expression from the standpoint of the ordinary reasonable observer, with no expert assistance. As it has evolved, however, the extrinsic test now objectively considers whether there are substantial similarities in both ideas and expression, whereas the intrinsic test continues to measure expression subjectively. Because only those elements of a work that are protectable and used without the author's permission can be compared when it comes to the ultimate question of illicit copying, courts use analytic dissection to determine the scope of copyright protection before works are considered "as a whole." 

Facts:

The parties, in this case, were competing computer companies. Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc. and defendant Microsoft Corporation. Lisa and Macintosh are Apple computers. Each has a graphical user interface, plaintiff registered for copyright as an audiovisual work. When the defendant released Windows 1.0, having a similar GUI, the plaintiff complained. As a result, the two agreed to a license giving Microsoft the right to use and sublicense derivative works generated by Windows 1.0 in the present and future products. Defendant released new versions that the plaintiff believed that these versions exceed the license, make Windows more "Mac-like," and infringe its copyright. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant contending the defendant exceeded the scope of its license and infringed upon the plaintiff's copyright-protected works. The district court ruled in favor of the defendant. The parties challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did the district court err in ruling in favor of the defendant in this copyright infringement claim?

Answer:

No. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, as the court correctly concluded that the works must be compared for virtual identity.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the district court properly identified the sources of similarity between the plaintiff's and defendant's graphic user interface, determined which were licensed, distinguished ideas from expression, and determined the scope of the plaintiff's copyright by dissecting unauthorized expression and eliminating unprotectable elements. Because virtually all of the similarities sprung from the licenses or from basic ideas and their obvious expression, the district court then correctly concluded that illicit copying could have occurred only if the works as a whole were virtually identical.