*NEWS*U.S. COURT REJECTS LEXMARK’s CLAIM

[Anonymous]

United States: Court Rejects Copyright Protection For Computer Program Found Lacking Originality
A
recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky provides important guidance about the amount of
creativity required to support copyright in a computer program and the
nature of fair use in the context of interoperability. The court held
that certain Lexmark software programs were not protected by copyright
and that the use of those programs to achieve interoperability between
devices was a protected “fair use.” Static Control Components, Inc. et
al v. Lexmark International Inc., Case No. 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT Lexmark
obtained copyrights on small programs that were used to measure toner
in certain Lexmark printer cartridges. The binary code of these
programs served as a lock-out code for the intended printers (i.e., if
the printer could not read the specific combination of binary numbers
from the inserted printer cartridge, the printer would not function).

When
Static Control reverse-engineered the binary code to achieve
interoperability between remanufactured cartridges and Lexmark
printers, it unwittingly copied verbatim the executable aspects of the
programs. Lexmark sued claiming copyright infringement. Static Control
maintained that the programs embodied no creative expression and
therefore, could not be protected by copyright.Lexmark argued that its
programs were sufficiently creative because it had made a series of
design choices when writing the programs. Static Control contended,
however, that the mere existence of alternatives cannot endow the
Lexmark code with originality it otherwise did not possess.

The
court determined that the programs did not have sufficient originality
to warrant copyright protection. The district court observed that
whether functional alternatives exist in the abstract is not the issue;
rather, the issue is whether the programmers actually expressed
sufficient originality when creating the programs. The court held that
the Lexmark programmers did not.Further, the district court found that
Static Control’s use of the entire program was “fair” as a matter of
law because “the purpose and character” of Static Control’s use of the
programs did not result in Static Control profiting from exploiting the
copyrighted work. There were actually two different purposes for the
same computer code—as executable programs per se and as lock-out codes.
Static Control only needed the string of binary numbers in their
lock-out functionality in order to permit interoperability; it did not
care about the toner measuring functions. As for any “creative” energy
that may have been expended in writing the programs related to the
measuring functions, Static Control was not seeking to benefit from it.

[Author]

June 20, 2007 at 11:23 AM