Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
35 F.3d 1435 · 1994
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 20 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Dr Seuss Enterprises Lp v. Penguin Books Usa Inc (1997), Smith v. Jackson (1996)
43 federal appellate · 20 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 103 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Wrenn v. McFadden · Jizmejian v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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 ... can be compared when it comes to the ultimate question of illicit copying, we use analytic dissection to determine the scope of copyright protection before works are considered ‘as a whole.’”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the range of protectable expression is narrow, the appropriate standard for illicit copying is virtual identity.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This does not mean that at the end of the day, when the works are considered under the intrinsic test, they should not be compared as a whole. Nor does it mean that infringement cannot be based on original selection and arrangement of unprotected elements. However, the unprotectable elements have to be identified, or filtered, before the works can be considered as a whole.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.