Micro-Sparc, Inc. v. Amtype Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2011
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 117 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 205 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on 597 F. Supp. 5 - Atari, Inc. v. JS & a GROUP, INC.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“typing service” constituted copyright infringement, defendant contended that it was making back-up copies of programs which appeared in plaintiffs magazine and that its activity therefore fell within the "archival exception.” The court rejected this defense, holding that when a subscriber to plaintiffs magazine “orders a disk from the defendant, he possesses the programs as they appear in the magazine. In this printed form, the programs are susceptible only to physical dangers, such as accidental shredding.” Id. at 35 . 22 . Ray Strackbein, the head of Vault’s engineering department, testified that programs recorded on diskettes are not subject to damage by electrical failure. T.R. at 255. There was no testimony to indicate that programs recorded on diskettes are subject to damage by mechanical failure. The only contrary evidence was presented by Warren Steinke who testified that CopyWrite protected against damage due to “a head crash,” "a voltage break”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner”
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.