Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 117 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 35 U.S.C. § 1 (American Inventors Protection Act of 1999) · 35 U.S.C. § 101
Relies on Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Mazer v. Stein · Diamond v. Diehr · Harelson v. United States · Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From plaintiff’s point of view, the best argument is that the idea of the operating system is the “original work” and that all that follows are copies. The counter-argument that plaintiff must respond to is a technical one that goes to the heart of the technology: in the case of the programs on ROM did the programmer-designer imagine the architectural structure of the ROM, the overlay of micro-switches that would be most economical and efficient for the system, or did he envision the flow chart of operations which the program would perform? If the former, the programmer may be said to have been an engineer designing a utilitarian aspect of the machine. If the latter, the programmer may not be said to have designed the architecture of the chip.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in a tangible medium of expression when: 28 its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is”
1 later decision 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.